Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
Shortcuts
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".

In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable. If the discussion takes the form of a request for comment, a common format for writing the RfC question can be found here. Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source.

While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Additional notes:
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to start a new discussion
Search the noticeboard archives

List of archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260
261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270
271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280
281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287

Rfc: Arab news is a reliable source?[edit]

Hi, recently an editor tried to use Arab News in Yemen Civil war article. The Arab News is not an independent outlet, the Saudi regime control all the media in Saudi Arabia, there is no freedom of speech there. Should be considered unreliable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Past Discussions
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#ArabNews

  • Reliable, use caution Arab News is reliable source per WP:NEWSORG (even SharʿabSalam▼ himself said it was reliable source back then). However, that does not mean it is necessarily unbiased. If it's difficult to find any source that is completely unbiased. For contentious information, it may sometimes be useful to cite the source by name, something like: "Arab News stated that ..." Ckfasdf (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Jamal Khashoggi.jpg
Ckfasdf, Arabnews operates from Saudi Barbaria. There is no freedom of the press in Saudi Barbaria, they have killed a journalist using a saw. How in God's name are we going to consider these sources reliable?.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, see also motivated reasoning. There's no evidence presented here that Arab News is printing falsehoods, though they may well be highly selective in what facts they do print. Guy (help!) 10:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I have to disagree about SharabSalam's statement about Saudi Arabia murdering the journalist because the suspects who murdered that journalist are arrested by Saudi police. Just look at the BBC News article. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I dont think Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi is related to decide whether Arab News is reliable source or not (they still have coverage on this topics, although they dont put news that link the event to saudi royal familiy). Well, it's pretty much what is Guy (help!) said. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • May be reliable for uncontroversial facts, but certainly not for the topic in qestion. Saudi Arabia is a party to the conflict and one can´t label any of their media as independent, because freedom of press is severely restricted (an euphemism) in Saudi Arabia. What will be next? Al-Ba'ath as a source for the Syrian Civil War? Pavlor (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree with Pavlor - somewhat reliable - I don't believe they are reliable on Saudi involved political issues, particularly including the named topic. While there may be a dearth of non-biased sources, this isn't a case of a source being just one notch above. They aren't tabloid-y, I don't think their level of bias is problematic for sports coverage etc, or even much of their world coverage Nosebagbear (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Lacking information on when and in what context the source was cited, I don't feel comfortable saying that it wouldn't be appropriate even with inline attribution to a source whose publisher has close ties to the Saudi regime. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it may be this (and related) edit [1] (arms supply by North Korea). Pavlor (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, in that case I would say no attribution necessary, but maybe use a better source. SharabSalam reverted content attributed to multiple sources, including The Huffington Post. Whether using the HP source for the claim that NK is a "party" to the war is appropriate is an entirely separate issue from the general reliability of Arab News. Here are two non-Saudi sources that also talk about a UN report on NK selling weapons to the Houthis. Moreover, the cartoon above and the lack of context provided by the OP makes it look like this is just being used as a forum to attack Saudi Arabia and Arab News in particular -- I am not saying I disagree with that sentiment (heck, I'm not even saying that the Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post got the relevant facts right in this case), but RSN definitely is not the forum for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The issue on that edit was fixed on later revision (such as cite generally-known RS which are CNN and Reuters, and removal claim NK as "party" to the war). But, it seems OP openly claim that sources from Saudi Arabia are inherently unreliable due to "differences of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech." Ckfasdf (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
In case of this civil war, Saudi sources (or even Saudi-owned like Arab news) aren´t really independent, so their reliability is indeed dubious. These may be perfectly reliable for many uses here on Wikipedia (eg. camel racing), but certainly not for regional conflicts (except probably as a source for statements by Saudi government). There are many much better reliable sources covering this region, I recommend using these instead. Pavlor (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't disagree. I think it depends on context, though; in this case the problem with adding North Korea as a "party" to the conflict had nothing to do with the independence of the source, as even Arab News didn't directly verify that content, and most of the rest could be easily verified with better sources, so the relative citability of AN was not really relevant. And of course, for 99% of our articles that might theoretically cite AN for uncontroversial content, the lack of media independence in "Saudi Barbaria" doesn't actually affect their reliability for such content, as the Saudi government is not directly involved in 99% of our articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I mean ... maybe we need to be careful when citing them on issues where the Saudi government is known to be involved and/or doing some shady shit; but their lack of independence on certain topics doesn't make them "inherently unreliable" (if there is such a thing) on all topics, and even on topics where they are probably not reliable, they can still be cited with inline attribution under certain circumstances.
If the only purpose of this thread is to attack "Saudi Barbaria", with no serious questions regarding sourcing in a particular instance, can it just be closed?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The proof of reliable source is that you can find same content on multiple sources. Based on discussion above, I believe everyone is agree that Arab News IS reliable source per WP:NEWSORG. However, due to high possibility of biased information on controversial topics (such as Yemen civil war), it should be avoided to use on those topics per WP:ACHIEVE NPOV. If no further comment from OP, yea... agree to close this Rfc. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems like SharabSalam had refused to make further comments. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Depends: Per Pavlor, Saudi Arabia is a participant to this conflict. Using information from their media depicting the Saudi government POV is fine if attributed. For any controversial topics, this media may not be reliable.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment No source is reliable for everything. The best approach is to use the best sources, per Good research, which would not be Arab news. Generally it should be used if at all in information about topics that receive little or no coverage in major news media. For example if an article is about a new restaurant in a suburb of Riyadh or some minor prince's falcons, then it might be the source to use. TFD (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Use per WP:SELFSOURCE only. Obviously not independent for info on the war in Yemen; should not be used to source statements like "In 2019, a secret UN report documents the Houthis receiving weapons from North Korea"; if there are no better sources, such statements should be omitted. Statements for which is Arab News is cited should be attributed in the text of the article to "Arab News, a news outlet controlled by the Saudi government, wrote that..." or some such. Since Saudi news outlets follow government-issued guidelines, and are told what to cover and when and how to cover it, they should be treated as PR agencies; they should not be used to establish notability (which requires independent third-party sources) on anything the Saudi government has a stake in publicizing. They are, however, perfectly acceptable sources for the same uses for which a government press release would be acceptable, and we can rely on them in the same way we rely on press releases, following WP:SELFSOURCE. This issue has history on this board. HLHJ (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The source for that statement have been replaced by source from Reuters which said pretty much the same thing. I believe everyone agree not to use Arab News on such topics. But, it doesn't mean Arab News is unreliable for other uncontroversial topics. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The guideline WP:BIASED seems relevant here. I prefer not to state my opinion on a matter this controversial, but noticed that no one has linked the guideline yet. Glades12 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
As this RfC has elapsed, I have requested closure at WP:RFCL § Rfc: Arab news is a reliable source?. — Newslinger talk 03:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process[edit]

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

Detail[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinions[edit]

  1. Support 1, 2a, 3 (first preference); 1, 2b, 3 (second preference) as proposer. Discussions on source classification at WP:RSN typically have few participants, but may have substantial impact if problematic sources are widely used. This also applies to spammed sites that are targets for blacklisting. Guy (help!) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support the proposal in principle, but I can't comment on the particulars simply because I don't have much experience of this area. Deprecating and/or blacklisting a widely used source can have long-term effects on the verifiability of content in the relevant topic area and it should be done with a stronger consensus that one achieved by one or two editors. The one case that I've been involved in in the past didn't leave me with the impression that the process was a sane one: a website used in a few hundred articles was blacklisted on the strength of opinion of three editors (with a fourth one disagreeing), where the major issue appeared to be not any demonstrable unreliability, but those editors' dislike for the fact that the website was generating a profit from running ads while using public domain data. If a discussion is more widely advertised (like with an RfC), then the impact of personal whimsy should be less noticeable, and the outcome better defensible. – Uanfala (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per Uanfala, the basic principle that deprecating a source is a sufficiently significant step to take that it needs many more eyes on the discussion to do so. Otherwise a walled garden dictates. Is the occuramce also uncommon enough to warrant a notice at CENT? ——SN54129 11:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support all: significant steps ought not be taken without discussion. But this is not my area of expertise, and so I am also unable to comment on the particular mechanisms of each proposal. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Like Uanfala I was involved in a case where a website was blacklisted on ideological grounds. In addition to the benefits list above, this proposal will provide us with an audit trail detailing when and why a site was blacklisted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - because I cannot in clear conscience fully support it. I'm also of the mind that such a proposal should go to VP for wider community input. There would have to be clearly defined parameters before blacklisting/deprecating any source in an effort to eliminate potentially harmful ideologically based decisions. --Atsme Talk 📧 01:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

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

  • I would generally oppose any language that imposes arbitrary cut offs. There is nothing special about "100", but if you include that type of language, people are going to treat it like gospel, as if there is something substantive that separates sources with 99 and 101 citations. GMGtalk 13:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    GreenMeansGo, I thought about that. I don't mind adding an option to strike the numerical example. Guy (help!) 17:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @JzG: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, heaven forfend that a complex issue could not be rendered in a way that pleases the bots. Guy (help!) 17:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    Face-smile.svg Thank you this is the effect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think proposals 2a and 2b should be restricted in scope to apply only to blacklisting domains for reasons related to reliability. An RfC would be unnecessary to blacklist a domain that was widely spammed in clear violations of the external link spamming guideline (excluding the reliability criterion). — Newslinger talk 03:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    ^This. After having manually removed almost 1000 occurrences of "lepidoptera.eu" from articles before having it blacklisted. It rarely happens, but it does. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    I also agree with this. We should put as much emphasis on verification and reliability as we can as some users can easily be confused with bias vs. reliability.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, so lepidoptera.eu was spammed. So was ZoomInfo (and I nuked all links). Playing devil's advocate, should we not blacklist and then have an RfC, as I propose, to ensure that there is broad support for removal? At least if it's used in pre-existing (clarification added) reference tags (which could have been more explicit, so I fixed that). External links is different. 1,000 articles is a big impact on the project. Even if the source is clearly unreliable, it's going to be better to have solid consensus for any automated removal. And in fact if we do it right we can probably get approval for a bot to remove all references to a site that has been through this process, which will save a massive amount of time. Guy (help!) 10:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this. Let's not give spammers a target to meet. Being used in reference tags is not particularly relevant, WP:CITESPAM is the default nowadays I believe. MER-C 12:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
This sounds backwards to me... I would think we would need an RFC prior to placing a site on the blacklist (whether due to reliability or some other reason) To determine whether the site should be added to the blacklist or not. Once a site is on the blacklist, however, we can automatically remove (and I don’t see a need to have additional RFCs before automatically removing).
Deprecated sources, on the other hand, are a different issue... these are discouraged, but NOT blacklisted (as they often have nuanced exceptions and carve outs attached to the deprecation)... so automatic removal is not the best solution. These need to be examined on a case by case basis, and additional RFCs may be needed. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Blueboar, MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist has over 8300 entries. Having an RFC "prior to placing a site on the blacklist" in 15 years would have required an RfC more frequently than every 16 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I am confused... How do you determine if something is spam vs legit sourcing without an RFC? Is there some alternative process? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Counter-question: How does one determine if a user needs to be blocked without an RFC? Or if a page needs to be protected? The point of electing administrators is to let some people enforce the community's policies in uncontroversial situations without having an RFC for every single action. The spam blacklist is primarily used to deal with the worst and most obvious cases of spam reported at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, just as WP:RFPP and WP:AIV are used for simple protection and blocking requests. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
ToBeFree, not that it's especially relevant but actually it's analogous to the proposed blacklisting response. Abuse is dealt with expeditiously but is then subject to review either by the user appealing the block (up to ArbCom if necessary) or by the admin posting the block for review on WP:ANI, one of the most watched pages on enWP. Guy (help!) 12:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Blueboar, the default for a deprecated source is to remove it. My standard approach would be to tag with {{deprecated inline}} and then after some time go back and remove the tagged sources. We should not raise enormous bureaucratic obstacles to removal of a source we have decided is crap. My issue is that the process for deciding it's crap is vulnerable to groupthink. And I say that as one of the group.
The reason for blacklist then RfC when there are significant numbers of references is to control abuse. We should not allow a spammer to run rampant for a week while we think about it. The blacklist controls abuse, most abuse does not involve substantial numbers of references in mainspace, because it's usually a simple matter of rolling back the edits of the spammers. The example that clarifies this for me is ZoomInfo. This was absolutelt spammed. I then checked the existing references and found a mix of good and likely bad faith additions, including what was almost certainly their people adding their archive url to a lot of references. Those archives are all now defunct, according tot he checks I did, so are worthless. The rest of the information cited to ZoomInfo was generally trivial and likely to be self-provided. I still think, in retrospect, an RfC would have been a good idea. It was discussed here in some detail, but only the usual suspects show up.
Bear in mind that the existing process for deprecation is a short discussion here, often with few participants. The default for blacklisting is even quicker. Turnaround can be close to real time and in some cases the person proposing addition, also actions it (not best practice but necessary to control spamming, same as speedy deletion nominations by an admin are sometimes done in one step rather than being tagged and left for a second pair of eyes).
It seems to me that best practice is to be more deliberative when significant numbers of existing references are affected. And recent experience, for me at least, backs that up. As an aside, I would also like to see a parameter in the {{cite}} templates to link to any discussion showing consensus to include an apparently dubious source (e.g. specific self-published books). A small and discreet checkmark could be displayed to say it's a qualified reference despite appearances to the contrary. Guy (help!) 12:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This is confusing two different things - whether a source is reliable and whether a source is being spammed. Sources which pass all the requirements of reliable sources can still be spammed (whether by/on behalf of the owner/creator of the source or by unrelated third parties), and not all unreliable sources are spammed or otherwise added maliciously. The Spam Blacklist should concentrate on sources that are being spammed - the determination of which does not require an RFC as it depends on behaviour here (and on other Wikimedia projects) rather than the quality of the source. If we on en:wiki want to keep a separate blacklist covering sources that are unwanted for reasons other than spamming (such as unreliability or copyvios, then that is a different thing entirely.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    Nigel Ish, no it's not, it's handling two scenarios whereby sources might be rejected: blacklisting (which can happen due to spamming but may affect large numbers of references if the site has been abused, as was the case with ZoomInfo), or deprecation / "Generally Unreliable". Both of these can happen as of today with virtually zero input. I think that's a bad thing if the site has been widely used. Given your decision to reinstate vanity presses and blogs lately, I think you are of the same view: we should not be adding a site to a list which qualifies it for large scale removal from Wikipedia without some more input than we currently get. Guy (help!) 12:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Updated[edit]

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

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

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

Are you essentially proposing that we expand the scope of the blacklist to cover deprecated sources as well as spam? If so, I would oppose. While deprecated sources ARE usually removed, there are nuanced exceptions when they should not be... and thus deprecated sources must be dealt with on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Blueboar, no, I am saying that when a site has been spammed but is widely used as a source, we should follow up with an RfC to decide what o do about the existing uses, part of which will be to assess whether it was, in fact, reliable in the first place. Guy (help!) 20:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok... my confusion stemmed from the fact that your proposal #3 focused on deprecated sources, and not spammed sources... but if you are now limiting the discussion to just spammed sources I can shift from opposition to neutrality. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Guy's statement We should not allow a spammer to run rampant for a week while we think about it. In this regard, I think that 2b is a bit better than 2a; I like the sound of The RfC may be initiated concurrent with addition to the blacklist where there is ongoing abuse more than The RfC may be initiated concurrent with requesting blacklisting. But, to me, neither option really seems clear about the chronology that is being envisioned here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    XOR'easter, sure. And I am happy to tweak it, but I think you understand my intent: blacklist then discuss. Controlling abuse comes first. Guy (help!) 20:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?[edit]

Is The Green Papers [2] a generally reliable source for election-related information? - MrX 🖋 20:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Should not be used in preference to established RS like the New York Times and other newspapers which cover this topic in sufficient detail. buidhe 21:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. The days and weeks after a primary/caucus is over, there can still be updates to votes totals and delegates from official sources until the final results are certified. The Green Papers always keeps up with these updates, while other reliable sources like the New York Times, USA Today, and CNN often do not. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, but...: The site provides high quality information, but it's essentially a self-published website by two politics geeks, with no editorial oversight (nor any web designer to speak of). It can be used, but if The Green Papers say one thing and mainstream media outlets say another, report what the mainstream outlets say, even if you believe the Green Papers are "more accurate". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. per above. --Enos733 (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. Based on a read of their 2020 Iowa results article, the source is reliable (display official election result data imported both from the primary official result website in each state and from the New York Times) and it is also of a unique high quality (as it transparently outline how national pledged delegates have been calculated while explaining the underlying math, so that the reader himself can check and verify that the calculated results indeed are correct).
    • When used along with a primary official result website source (i.e the IDP website), then The Green Papers source add quality to wikipedia. Newspaper sources and even the offical website result websites, tend to skip publication of the calculations behind the allocation of national pledged delegates, and instead just jump on to display only the final results.
    • Another quality of The Green Papers source is that it continue to track subsequent developments for the calculated final result of allocated won "national pledged delegates", both when "certified final results" are published by the official result website roughly one month after the election, and in those cases where the initial won "national pledged delegates" subseqently transfers to other candidates (i.e. check how the source was used to keep track of the final results in this 2008 Iowa Democratic cacucuses wikipedia article, where it should be noted that most newspapers at the time in comparison failed to update their several month old result articles to keep track of the subsequent developments happening months later for the Iowa national pledged delegates). Danish Expert (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes and no. Yes in that its data is probably accurate; no in that it doesn't really qualify as RS in the usual Wikipedia sense, though IAR may apply. I largely agree with what Buidhe and MaxBrowne2 said above. This site reminds me of Kworb for music data. feminist (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No - It is a self published website with unknown editorial oversight. It may be usable in some contexts, but when major news organizations routinely report election results, there is no real value in citing a self published source. - MrX 🖋 13:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No - I agree with feminist that the data might be accurate, but it is a self published Blog so its reliability is questionable. I don't think it should be used as a main reliable reference, maybe a secondary in some cases. ContentEditman (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No SPS blog by people who do not seem to be recognised experts.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No - Self-published blog. They probably get it right most of the time but I see no reason to rely on them when there are ample better sources (official reports, AP, NYTimes) to cite. Neutralitytalk 20:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No I notice a disclaimer on the Nevada Democrats caucus page: "These pages contain a combination of official, unofficial, and estimated data. The information posted here is subject to change."[5] If something is an estimate, that must be mentioned in the text. But there is no reason in reporting their estimates since they have no claim to expertise. However, journalists are supposed to have the expertise to weigh sources, so we can use their info if it is reported in news articles. TFD (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No Where more reliable sources agree with their data, use the more reliable sources. Where more reliable sources disagree with it, then we can't trust this one. There's no good reason to use it. --Jayron32 15:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: I suspect that all those who replied "No" from 23-26 February most likely lack some experience on what this source is really about and how Wikipedia article's previously chose to use it (as a supplementing secondary source along with the primary source being the "official election result webpage") for most US presidential elections (including primaries and caucuses) over the past 20 years.
      The Green Papers is not a traditional source, but more of a factual election result database, which collected and documented all official election results (with its primary data-input being identical to the imported results from the primary official website result webpages, and adding several important additional calculation details - plus some sourced comments on all potential subsequent changes to the count of pledged national convention delegates happening after the election date itself) for all Democratic/Republican presidential races from 2000-2020 in their database. It can simply not just be replaced by any other reliable source.
      Besides of being the most complete and accurate historic database for final results (i.e the created wikipedia article about the source features this line: "During the 2016 presidential election, many journalists started paying attention to the site's delegate counts, and Quoctrung Bui of the New York Times noted that the site "...does something very few media organizations are willing to do: accurately and independently tabulate delegates in real time."[1]), it also like CNN+AP trade in the business of calculating a projected preliminary count of won pledged national convention delegates based on the ongoing preliminary partial count before 100% of the voting places reported their result (hence they also added their "data disclaimer" on the top of the page, warning readers that their page features preliminary data subject to change). Whether or not these preliminary calculated data for pledged national convention delegates (based on partial less than 100% counted results) should be added to Wikipedia articles by AP/CNN/TGP or none of them at all, is a second very seperate ongoing debate, where my own position is, that infoboxes should completely refrain from displaying these calculated preliminary data figures delivered by any source, meaning that we should instead just opt to display a "TBD" - at least until 100% of the vote has been counted.
      Contrary to AP/CNN, the The Green Papers however nevertheless is the only source that transparently display how this calculation of pledged national convention delegates is performed (first based on preliminary unofficial results and later based on final official certified results being imported by the source-linked primary official result webpage), and The Green Papers is the only available source that provides a full explanation of how this calculation math is working, and moreover it has a historic track record of doing these calculations both faster and more accurate compared to AP/CNN. We have no source to replace it, because as you can see this alternative AP source do not deliver the same amount of data details compared to The Green Papers. Finally, it is similar to all alternative newspaper sources being updated very frequently several times per day, so it never features outdated data. Danish Expert (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bui, Quoctrung (2016-05-08). "The Secretive Duo Guiding the Delegate Count". The New York Times. Retrieved 2018-09-10.
  • Where the source collates information from electoral officials, we can follow Say where you read it. For example in a 1948 congressional race in Idaho, we could cite that electoral board and mention in the footnote that we got the info from The Green Papers. But there is no reason to report their calculated results if they have been ignored by mainstream sources. Bear in mind too that we are not preventing readers from going to The Green Paper if they wish to do so. It is not the role of Wikipedia to incorporate everything available on other sites on the internet. TFD (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • You accidently missed the point of my stated comment above. MrX started this "reliable source RFC" because he want to use AP/CNN instead of TGP as a reliable source for the preliminary calculated number of "pledged national convention delegates" election results. My position is, that neither AP/CNN/TGP should be used as sources for a display of this preliminary data (based on less than 100% of the votes being counted), as per WP:NOTNEWS. However, there is absolutely no reason to change how Wikipedia has previously used TGP as a reliable supplementing secondary database source for US election articles in the past 20 years, as it provides this important valuable additional info not reported by ordinary newspaper sources:
    1. Number of pledged national convention delegates based on the election result itself (while providing all verifiable math and explanation for this calculation, which competing sources tend to skip).
    2. Subsequent changes to the number of allocated pledged national convention delegates due to events from candidates pulling out of the race - or subsequent changes due to subsequent election system developments at the state's district convention or state convention.
    3. Display exactly how many pledged delegates each candidate won within respectively each of the 6 election races that form part of a states overall election event (i.e. congressional district 1+2+3+4 delegates, plus the PLEO delegates per statewide total and at-large delegates per statewide total).
    4. Finally TGP also keep track on how each states unpledged delegates finally vote on the floor of the Democratic Partys' National Convention.
All of the above 4 additional data points are not provided by alternative newspaper sources. Once certified results are published by the primary official election source (which TGP link to), they then finally also remove their data disclaimer about "preliminary data subject to change" (i.e. see the 2016 Iowa election result article). This is why Wikipedia shall continue to use TGP as a supplementing data source (along with a primary official election webpage source), without enforcing any changes to how Wikipedia previously up until today has opted to use this TGP source. Danish Expert (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
There are reasons. We are an encyclopedia whose credibility is based on adherence to referencing to sources with reputations for fact checking, editorial oversight, and making corrections when necessary. Your argument is based largely on the mechanics of the information that TGP publishes and your own assessment of its value and quality. We should not use questionable sources simply because they publish information that reliable sources don't. We have always done it that way is a poor argument for elevating this source. I would be careful about making declarations like "Wikipedia shall continue to use TGP as a supplementing data source" that may run contrary to consensus. - MrX 🖋 13:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
We are however experience editors who (generality) understand policy, an SPS is an SPS accuracy is irrelevant. If this was produced by A recognised (BY other RS) it might be usable, no evidence has been produced it is. can tell you (exactly) what the weather is like outside my house, that does not make me an RS on it (no matter how accurate I am).Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi MrX, would you mind adding an {{rfc}} tag to this discussion to make this a formal request for comment, or removing "RfC:" from the section heading? — Newslinger talk 12:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Wait, I see that Legobot removed the {{rfc}} tag in Special:Diff/940712018 after this RfC was prematurely archived. I restored the tag. — Newslinger talk 13:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I should have caught that. - MrX 🖋 13:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

OpIndia and Swarajya[edit]

OpIndia[edit]

OpIndia is currently cited in 23 articles HTTPS links HTTP links, including List of riots in India and Shaheen Bagh protests. It is on the spam blacklist due to its practice of doxing, which has negatively affected at least one Wikipedia editor. However, there has never been an extensive discussion on this noticeboard that focused exclusively on OpIndia. Two previous discussions refer to OpIndia:

  1. Unreliability of website Opindia.com (2017): No responses
  2. Scroll, OpIndia, The Wire, The Quint, The Print, DailyO, postcardnews, rightlog etc. (2018): Determined to be generally unreliable

Is OpIndia a reliable or unreliable source for Indian politics, fact checks, or other topics? Also, should the citations of OpIndia in the 23 articles be removed under WP:ELNEVER, or should some of them be whitelisted? — Newslinger talk 02:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics, Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 02:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Asbolutely unreliable per what Newslinger said and I think it clear this site is absolutely unreliable and that they are attacking Wikipedia because they don't like what we write because it doesn't fit their Islamophobic agenda. I have seen this source used many times on this article. It's full of stuff that are only sourced to this source. I think it needs to be rewritten.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Completely depreciate I have read some of their articles due to certain case of abuse which has befallen our community recently, and they are clearly partisan hackery. If there was ever for a case for a "news" (tabloid) site to be completely blacklisted on Wikipedia, it's OpIndia. They serve as a reactionary dumping ground for mankind's worst natural tendencies on a level of surpassing even Breitbart. They'll stoop to any low to push their pathetic agenda, and it infuriates me that it has come at the human cost to this very project. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate - rejected by the international fact checker organization - that says it all. It’s irresponsible to link our readers to such an unreliable source. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate For any number of reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate including any archived links. OPIndia is nothing more than a rag-mag and has no reputation for meaningful fact checking or truthfulness. Praxidicae (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate including archived links. Absolutely no modicum of reliability, any news website which outs an editor cannot claim to be journalistic/news portal/fact-checking site. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate on the doxxing behaviour alone. Legitimate journalists know better than to alienate potential sources or place sources/subjects in harm's way. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 20:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Depreciate no reputation for fact checking what so ever. Curdle (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate Any media site that doxes a Wikipedia editor over what it judges to be "political" edits is unethical and, therefore, unreliable. I think we can find better sources for anything that has been linked to that site. Liz Read! Talk! 18:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Apparently, this discussion is followed (Redacted) by "journalists" from this site who've already doxed one editor and (Redacted) threatened on Twitter to out more. The doxer has almost 200k followers. Need more proof? Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I've decided it's best to remove the links from the current discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate Doxing & lack of editorial control. Cabayi (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable - Cited by reliable sources as a news source, albeit one that explicitly leans right and is "against mainstream media".Pectoretalk 21:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate, per Praxidicae, Liz, and Levivich. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate doxing, lack of editorial control. Which means my name will be added to the Twitter feed documenting this. I see there's a big dispute at the article itself started by an SPA (and see this edit by them. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate and fuck the Twitterati. ——SN54129 14:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - Other editors discussed the doxing issue, so I will be focusing on other aspects of OpIndia that render it an unreliable source. For one, OpIndia - a news, opinions, and fact checking site - makes no pretensions about being neutral in its reporting; the site has made the conscious decision to direct its content towards investigating the mainstream media establishment, with the logic being that the establishment (be it government, media, global elites, etc) has a corruptive effect on society and is suppressing dissent. This is all well and good - similar arguments are made by both sides of the political spectrum - but also puts the site at odds with Wikipedia, which is innately drawn to a centrist position as it is the oft-maligned establishment that produces the sources used to generate Wikipedia articles. If the site had a stellar reputation for accuracy despite its biases then a case could be made that it could be cited on WP:NPOV grounds, but OpIndia has been criticized for its reporting/fact-checking methods; for example, the IFCN rejected the site's request for accreditation, noting that while OpIndia performed some fact-checking, it rarely relied on data and often employed quotes or information from the India government to disprove claims made by opposition parties. OpIndia was also criticized for primarily following up claims of misinformation related to its ideological opponents and for failing to have a clear corrections policy in place. True to form, OpIndia later issued a rebuttal stating that their application to the IFCN had, in fact, been its attempt to check the IFCN for bias; the rebuttal would then go on to criticize other sites that have been accredited by the IFCN while claiming that, while OpIndia is ontologically opposed to some political dispositions, its fact-checking is done without bias. This paragraph from the OpIndia rebuttal sums up the site's innate political disposition and by extension its focus while fact checking - well,

The IFCN construes our disdain towards the ‘left-liberal narrative’ as evidence of bias. It appears that they do not realize that these are our ontological positions on the basis of which we operate. For instance, we do not believe gender is a social construct. We do not believe a man can transform into a woman or vice versa through medical procedures. We do not believe secularism as it is practised in India is ideal for the social fabric of the country. We believe illegal immigration is a threat to the sovereignty of the Indian state. We do believe Hindus suffer institutional discrimination in this country. We do not believe Hindutva is a genocidal ideology. We believe in the multiplicity of the Divine. These are our ontological positions which place us at odds with the left-liberal narrative. As is clear, this is not evidence of partisanship, these are evidence of a difference of opinion about the nature of our reality.

This seems to be a common theme with OpIndia's content - vigorously attacking its opponents while holding its credo as a shield to deflect any criticism of its fact-checking and editorial practices.
In addition to the above, some of OpIndia's other practices indicate it is not a reliable source. For example, it - via myvoice.opindia - allows for account holders to submit articles as "Guest Authors" to the site. These articles are checked by staff, but this is (somewhat ironically given OpIndia's recent criticism of Wikipedia) still user-generated content. The site's reliance on social media users to forward leads to instances of misinformation is also a concern. OpIndia's website is also somewhat vague on the status and backgrounds of its editors; for example its "About Us" section lists a "Core Team" of editors mostly identified with their social media handles, while its "Fact Check Team" - though less vague - only provides brief descriptions of its members. This is in stark contrast to other fact checking sites like Vishvasnews, which was accredited by the IFCN, offers more extensive details of its staff, and shows instances where it issued retractions. In light of the above, my conclusion is that OpIndia should be considered an unreliable source of information. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate as above, they have shown themselves to be partisan to an extreme extent, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Completely deprecate over doxing of Wiki editors and lack of editorial control. SerTanmay (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Depracate: Its misreporting is fairly well documented. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Depracate per OpIndia (their statement, quoted by Sam Holt, was enough for me). GirthSummit (blether) 22:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate per above arguments, they are clearly not interested in providing journalistic content, but in providing a viewpoint only. Waggie (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am generally not in favor of declaring sites "reliable" or "unreliable," since this is not a black-and-white matter. The "best" site is sometimes wrong and the "worst" site sometimes has correct, irreplaceable information. However, given this site's practice of doxxing an editor in an effort to skew WP content, I have no objection to blacklisting in this instance. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate per everyone above. These editors, the smartest on Wikipedia, the most experienced, the eloquent, the considerate, toward all points of view, even those least deserving an attribution of reliability, have spoken, and done so unanimously. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Blacklist. Vicious and dangerous doxxing. Bishonen | tålk 08:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC).
    @Bishonen: Already blacklisted. -qedk (t 心 c) 23:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate and blacklist. Among all of the sources I have examined on this noticeboard, I have never encountered a source that blatantly undermined Wikipedia's reliability to the extent that OpIndia did in this recent incident. Nupur J Sharma, the editor of OpIndia, doxed a Wikipedia editor in good standing with a history of constructive contributions in order to make it unsafe for them to continue editing Wikipedia – solely because she was unhappy that the editor's strict adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines formed articles that did not align with OpIndia's far-right pro-Hindutva perspective. (If you're unfamiliar with the term, Hindutva is a form of Hindu nationalism, which is like white nationalism but more popular.) This is a corruption of the third pillar of Wikipedia, which establishes the fundamental principle that anyone can edit Wikipedia.

    If this weren't bad enough, Sharma then contacted Jimmy Wales on Twitter and demanded that he take action against the editor she doxed. Wales responded with a number of corrections, revealing that Sharma did not fact-check her hit piece at all. Instead of correcting her errors or retracting the hit piece, Sharma sent a 4,000-word email to Wales petitioning for the editor she doxed to be removed from Wikipedia. According to publicly available information, Wales ceased further communication with Sharma. It was clear at this point that Sharma's reputation is that of a blogger who specializes in punditry, not an actual journalist who produces content suitable for referencing in Wikipedia.

    OpIndia has more general problems than their doxing, and SamHolt6 covers some of these issues above. When OpIndia gets called out for publishing fake news, they sometimes respond by marking the article as "satirical", as documented in their rejection from the International Fact-Checking Network in 2019. OpIndia is an Indian version of The Gateway Pundit (RSP entry) that pretends to be The Onion (RSP entry) when others catch them publishing false and misleading information. In a 2018 RfC, Breitbart News (RSP entry) was criticized for having a "black crime" section on their website; it is now deprecated and blacklisted. If Breitbart had a "Muslim crime" section, it would look like much of the propaganda in the 300+ articles listed in opindia.com/tag/muslim.

    Nupur J Sharma had a chance to make OpIndia a respectable publication. Wikipedia does not exclude publications for being biased or opinionated; the fact that OpIndia is far-right and pro-Hindutva does not, by itself, disqualify them from being a reliable source. However, what do make OpIndia a questionable source are their unbreakable habit of publishing false and misleading information, and their tendency to attack any entity who questions their reporting, instead of making error corrections like a respectable publication. The presence of bias does not excuse unreliability. Swarajya, which is owned by the same company as OpIndia, republishes entire articles from OpIndia (lightly reworded) under the "Swarajya Staff" byline and should be treated similarly.

    In conclusion, OpIndia has no place in Wikipedia citations as long as they continue to act this way (especially if they dox and threaten to sue when they are called out on it). — Newslinger talk 00:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Swarajya[edit]

Swarajya, the former parent publication of OpIndia, is currently cited in 305 articles HTTPS links HTTP links, including Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and Malala Yousafzai. It is on the spam blacklist for republishing OpIndia's doxing attempts. Like OpIndia, Swarajya has not yet been extensively discussed on this noticeboard, but was mentioned in two previous discussions:

  1. Book reviews of a brand new book are primary sources? (2016): Minimal discussion
  2. I searched for Swarajya magzine in archives or its reliability but cannot find either. (2019): Identified as biased or opinionated

Is Swarajya a reliable or unreliable source for Indian politics, Indian news, international news, or other topics? Also, should the citations of Swarajya in the 305 articles be removed under WP:ELNEVER, or should some of them be whitelisted? Finally, should a distinction be made between Swarajya's weekly print magazine (published 1956–1980), its monthly print magazine (published 2015–present), and its website (active 2014–present)? — Newslinger talk 17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Depreciate. for the same reasons above. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@MJL: Courtesy ping. I added the last question (about Swarajya's print and website eras) right after you submitted your comment. — Newslinger talk 17:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Newslinger: That last question requires too much thinking, so I'm glad I answered when I did :P –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Deprecate website for same reasons as above. No opinion on the pre-1980 print version, but the gap between 1980 and 2015 is large enough that I don't see much reason to judge the former version by its latter incarnation. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate per my reasoning above. Praxidicae (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Rather than edit my initial statement, I'd like to add that I think one thing we can and should all agree on when it comes to sourcing is that any media outlet which puts out hit pieces on our editors because of political motivations and presents it as gospel is an unreliable (and unethical) source. Praxidicae (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Selectively deprecate site’s news section or articles written by Swarajya staff are unreliable. But their opeds seems to have high quality editorial standards. They’ve editorial policies, correction policies and similar structure like any media house. That’s not case with OpIndia. — Brihaspati (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Your argument is that their op-eds are of good quality and editorial oversight but their actual editorial board published pieces...are not? Praxidicae (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae, most of their fake news are being spread on the name of Swarajya Staff. It is unreliable for news reports for sure. Except one case of op-ed, I didn't see much more fake news thing in op-ed and they apologised for it too. Brihaspati (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Changing my opinion to reliable as Swarajya took those pieces down.-- Brihaspati (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate No way that Swarajya has ever produced unbiased respectable journalistic content. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate - Again, based on being accessories to doxxing. My reasoning is above. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 20:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate as above. Curdle (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate Ditto. Liz Read! Talk! 18:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate Whilst bias may not be an issue but their stuff may not be reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate Re-doxing & lack of editorial control. Cabayi (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable - Cited all the time by other Indian newspapers as a news source, albeit a right-wing one.Pectoretalk 21:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. In several years of working on this topic I cannot recall factual information that they reported on that better sources did not also report; conversely, I can think of a number of occasions on which the material they have published is unquestionably inappropriate, including the recent episode. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate and fuck the Twitterati. ——SN54129 14:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate - and Vanamonde makes a good point. If it's significant enough to be included in our articles there will be better sources. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate unreliable and partisan to an extreme extent, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Completely deprecate over doxing of Wiki editors and lack of editorial control; reposting of OpIndia material. SerTanmay (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment:- Swarajya has took those pieces down. I can't find them on their website.-- Brihaspati (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    After Swarajya published the article, they also shared it with their 670,000+ followers on Facebook and their 170,000+ followers on Twitter. The damage has already been done. — Newslinger talk 15:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Not to mention they are still tweeting and sharing FB posts about it and encouraging people to continue to dox editors. Praxidicae (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable: I was going through the policy on reliable sources and as I understand it, editorial POV alone does not mean a source is unreliable WP:BIASED. It’s not a reason to blacklist or deprecate the source. Additionally, as per WP:NEWSORG, “Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.” In the case of Swarajya, I feel that their news is generally reliable as they present it with evidence to back it up, and they have an editorial policy that they adhere to. So, having a liberal center-right perspective doesn’t make a news source unreliable. Wikipedia editors should have access to a liberal center-right perspective so that Wikipedia as a whole can maintain a neutral point of view and doesn’t become slanted to the left, which is what would inevitably happen to India-focused articles if reliable right-of-center news sources like Swarajya are blacklisted or deprecated.Harshmellow717 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Harshmellow717, there are other Indian right leaning news agencies which have reliable reporting (e.g: Deccan Chronicle, New Indian Express, Aaj Tak, etc). Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate (excluding archives): The news reporting is certainly unreliable, more or less on par with OpIndia with which it has a strong association. It's political stance is more a matter of branding derived from the older magazine. It does maintain the archives of the old magazine which would be reliable though care must be taken in its utilization due to its then connection with the Swatantra Party. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable: I feel that Swarajya is a generally reliable news source. It has a distinguished editorial advisory board, and while it does make mistakes like any news source, it also makes corrections when necessary. Also, some people have said it is okay to deprecate it since other available sources offer the same information. However, on the contrary, I find this point to further corroborate against deprecation, since if we are not deprecating other sources that offer the same information, why would we single out and deprecate Swarajya? I also read the policy on reliable sources and didn’t see anywhere in the policy that a news source’s use of publicly identifiable information (as has been done about a Wikipedia editor) is a criterion for evaluating reliability of a news source. If I missed this detail, I am open to being directed to where it is mentioned in the policy. I think we have to stick to stated Wikipedia policy to determine reliability of sources so that an objective decision can be made. PinkElixir (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    Responding to "if we are not deprecating other sources that offer the same information": actually, we are. See the section on OpIndia above. Swarajya regularly paraphrases entire articles from OpIndia under the anonymous "Swarajya Staff" byline. See https://swarajyamag.com/search?q=opindia for a long list, which establishes that Swarajya inherits the unreliability of OpIndia. — Newslinger talk 02:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate per above arguments. Waggie (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable: In reviewing this thread, I didn’t see any evidence presented of its inaccurate reporting or the absence of an editorial policy (WP:RS). In fact, Swarajya Magazine has an editorial policy: https://swarajyamag.com/fact-checking-and-correction-policy editorial policy. Its Wikipedia article lists 8 references as evidence of ‘misinformation,' 2 of which refer to an article reporting misinformation about the name of an actor in a movie. In one of these articles, a third-party news organization acknowledges the actions Swarajya took to correct the misinformation:

    “It is noteworthy Swarjaya later updated its report with the correct information, although clarification on its tweet – “The main accused in Lakshmi’s acid case was Naeem Khan but he is said to have been named “Rajesh” in Deepika’s movie” – is yet to be provided… [Update: Swarajya deleted its tweet after this report was published. Vikas Pandey’s tweet and erroneous reposts published by News18, Inda TV and Jansatta have been added to the fact-check.]”

    Additionally, after reviewing other policies, I feel that sanctions (such as blacklisting or deprecating) against either news organization due to the issue of “doxing” appears to be against Wikipedia policy. The Wikieditor in question made their private information public which technically excludes them from any sanctions as outlined in WP:OUTING:

    “If you have accidentally posted anything that might lead to your being outed (including but not limited to inadvertently editing while logged out, which reveals your IP address, and thus, your approximate location), it is important that you act promptly to have the edit(s) oversighted. Do not otherwise draw attention to the information. Referring to still-existing, self-disclosed posted information is not considered outing, and so the failure of an editor to have the information redacted in a timely manner may remove it from protection by this policy.”

    Unfortunately, because the Wikieditor did not oversight this information in a timely manner, the news organization used that publicly available information to help reveal the identity of the editor in question to raise a related question based on the data they presented. I agree with PinkElixir that doxxing is not a criteria per WP:RS which also means it’s not a valid argument to support deprecating this source. If there are other policies of which I’m unaware, I’d be happy to review them, but for now, Swarajya fails to meet WP:DEPRECATE based on the evidence presented on this thread. Moksha88 (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    "Unfortunately, because the Wikieditor did not oversight this information in a timely manner...": That argument is a form of victim blaming. Doxing doesn't suddenly become ethical because someone's personal information is available. (In fact, doxing is only possible when someone's personal information is available.) Doxing is a questionable editorial practice that – when done with the intention of making it unsafe for an editor to remain on Wikipedia (as was done by Swarajya and OpIndia) – is in direct contravention of the third pillar of Wikipedia, which states that anyone can edit Wikipedia.

    See SamHolt6's comprehensive takedown of OpIndia for why Swarajya fails to meet the standards of the reliable sources guideline. Swarajya frequently republishes lightly rephrased content from OpIndia, so the same arguments apply here. — Newslinger talk 04:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

There have been numerous cases where Swarajya reports have been picked up by Constitutional bodies of India (not the government, but those independent of government) and followed up for police action.

These cases involve some of society's marginalised and vulnerable sections including minors.

Examples include a case in Begusarai district where the National Commission For Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR)[1] ordered follow up action based on a Swarajya report. This involved the rescue of a minor who had been kidnapped.

Illegal slaughter houses, a major environmental and crime related issue, were ordered to be shut after a Swarajya news report.

The Scheduled Castes Commission, an independent Constitutional body picked up a Swarajya report and ordered help to a member of a marginalised community.

Many of the stories cited as Fake News on the Swarajya page are articles which are citing mainstream news outlets NOT blacklisted here. Hardly evidence of malicious fake news plants - these seem to be stories that relied on large media outlets - how one can read malice here, when the original sin was by other media houses, beats me.--Adurcup23 (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC) — Adurcup23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Administrator note: due to canvassing by Moksha88 (AE report) having tainted this process, several preferences from those users may need to be discounted. El_C 14:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - I repeat the above, which also applies here: I am generally not in favor of declaring sites "reliable" or "unreliable," since this is not a black-and-white matter. The "best" site is sometimes wrong and the "worst" site sometimes has correct, irreplaceable information. However, given this site's practice of doxxing an editor in an effort to skew WP content, I have no objection to blacklisting in this instance. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable: - It is clear that this outlet is a pro-Hindu but I consider their reporting is factual and they push more stories discussing the issues related to the Hindu community as compared to news on other topics. This practice does not make this outlet unreliable. I do not see that they have misreported anything or harassed any specific community so far. Especially, due to personal political and ideological hatred, some of the other IFCN-verified fact-checker sources which are often un-reliable and mis-report incidents such as AltNews (the founder of AltNews himself is a public hater of Hindutva and whoever is inclided towards that ideology whereas shows a soft stance towards the left-wing believers) seem to have selectively bashed this (Swarajya) outlet in the past. Vishal Telangre (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable: - Swarajya's reporting has been factual. Its editorial policy is sound. Reporting on a WP Editor doesn't make it unreliable, unless the report was fake. Is there a policy that makes news sources critical of Wikipedia "unreliable"? IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    There were a number of false and misleading claims made in the hit piece published by Swarajya (and OpIndia) that contained doxing. The piece was not "factual", and the author(s) clearly did not bother to confirm their claims with the subject(s) of the article or any related people, which reflects a poor reputation for fact-checking. — Newslinger talk 07:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    The website truthofgujarat.com which now redirects to altnews.com[3] had hosted all articles which are good examples of doxing, most of which were authored by Pratik Sinha who is the founder of AltNews. AltNews, still continues publishes similar material. So if we do an apple to apple comparison, AltNews should be deprecated, too? Vishal Telangre (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    Can you provide a link to the piece? Did they report anything that was untrue? What claims were false or misleading? I have been reading Swarajya for some time now. I wouldn't disagree that they have an editorial bias, much like the wire or quint, but overall, I haven't seen any problems in their reporting. Marking a publication as unreliable out of vindictiveness sounds petty to me. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    We don't provide links to blacklisted sites. That's what "blacklisted" means. As for "vindictiveness", that's a good word for the practice of both OpIndia and Swarajya. Bishonen | tålk 08:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC).
    I didn't know Swarajya was blacklisted. Why are we having this discussion then? Nevertheless, I would stick to my opinion. The source is ReliableIndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    You didn't know that, IndianHistoryEnthusiast? Maybe you'd like to read the opening of this thread that you're opining in, to see that Swarajya is blacklisted and a brief explanation of why we're nevertheless having this discussion. Bishonen | tålk 12:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC).
  • Deprecate. The connection with OpIndia and republication of their hit piece on our editor is enough for me. Bishonen | tålk 08:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC).
    Interesting. Who is "our" in "our editor"? Wikipedia do not employ editors, so is there a "group" whose that editor is a member of? I am also an editor (have done some translations) and I have not hit by something like that. Vishal Telangre (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I am unpaid member of a local club, all it members, they would still be referred to as "our members". We are in fact all unpaid) and volunteer) editors. Thus yes, they have doxed one of our editors.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I have also recevived threats of blocking my editorial rights in the past from a Wikipedia editor. I believe we are not "we" but groups of ideologically parted "we". Good to know and thanks for the information. I also would like to safegaurd myself from getting doxed by someone on Wikipedia, where can I learn about it? How should I report it? Is there a list of community meetups that happen in India? Vishal Telangre (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The argument presented here is flawed, there is no policy that makes a page unreliable or worth deprecating because it published a piece critical of an editor, or even if the site engaged in doxxing. Is there a policy that clearly states that news sources that have doxxed wikipedia editors are unreliable? I think not.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Swarajya (and OpIndia) doxed the editor without properly fact-checking the article, which is characteristic of a questionable source. The verifiability policy instructs editors to generally avoid questionable sources. Doxing an editor with the intention of subjecting the editor to harassment that prevents the editor from editing Wikipedia due to safety reasons, as was done by Swarajya and OpIndia, corrupts the third pillar of Wikipedia ("Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute"). — Newslinger talk 10:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it is unfair to lump both Swarajya and OpIndia in a single category. Swarajya has a well defined editorial policy, R Jagannathan is a well respected journalist. While I don't agree with the practice of doxxing, one article is not enough to characterise a source as completely unreliable. Had it been a news source that doxxed someone not related to wikipedia, we wouldn't have had a problem. Editor of pages like AltNews have doxxed twitter accounts in the past, that doesn't make them unreliable. Swarajya has done great reporting in various fields, publishing one article, which I cannot seem to find on their website anymore, doesn't make them worthy of being deprecated. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/KanoongoPriyank/status/1209484668589854720?s=08
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/factcheckindia/status/1082597906123710464
  3. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/2019*/www.truthofgujarat.com

The Sun on BLPs[edit]

The Sun is deprecated anyway, but it's especially a problem on BLPs. Please see discussion I started at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Edit_filter_for_The_Sun_on_BLPs?_(or_in_general) - how to filter this, and technical details of how to hamper its use on articles and especially on BLPs - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
It shouldn't be a problem, AFAIK this link reports citations to The Sun on all BLPs (or at least all articles in the category "Living People") and there are zero hits. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
That a category, not all articles that fall under BLP (such as articles about clubs) may be on it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I think insource: is needed to search for text in citations. This search returns just 3 citations in BLPs, which is also pretty good. There are only 23 articles (including BLPs and non-BLPs) that still cite The Sun or its regional variants. — Newslinger talk 14:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The Sun (yet again)[edit]

Moved from WP:BLPN#Edit_filter_for_The_Sun_on_BLPs?_(or_in_general)

David, per the RfC: Furthermore, this closure does neither permit a blacklisting nor a wholesale nuking of all Sun references, without any discretion.. What kinds of discretion are you using? I notice that today you deleted 5 Sun cites in 5 articles in less than 2 minutes; or 15 cites in 15 articles in 7 minutes. All replaced with {{cn}}. Nevertheless, many of these cites could be easily replaced by other sources (example). My concern is about leaving smoking craters in our zeal to eliminate an undesirable source (generally) even when that source is making claims that can supported in other reliable sources. -- GreenC 15:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, it isn't David's responsibility to search for sources; the burden lies with the person wishing to add the new source to find it. David has done nothing wrong. --Jayron32 17:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I remove Sun references one at a time, in accordance with policy (WP:V, WP:BURDEN), strongly accepted guidelines included in policy by reference (WP:RS) and strong general consensus (WP:THESUN).
  1. WP:RS says: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources.
  2. WP:RS is a guideline, but it's included by explicit reference in the first sentence of WP:V, which is policy: On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. The words "reliable source" link further down the page to #What_counts_as_a_reliable_source, which is headed with Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
  3. Verifiability - which is policy - requires the use of reliable sources. Deprecated sources are those that have been found, by strong consensus, to be generally unreliable. The deprecation RFC for the Sun says: the Sun is designated as a generally-unreliable publication. References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article.
  4. WP:BURDEN - which is policy - states: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
Thus: removing links to the Sun is almost always the correct thing to do, as it is a source that has been found generally unreliable. It is not mandatory - but it is almost always correct.
WP:BURDEN - which is policy - also states: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So the burden of proof for addition or restoration of deprecated sources is entirely on the person doing so, and not on the person removing the deprecated sources.
Deprecated sources are completely unacceptable for articles on living people, obviously, except in extremely narrow circumstances. (That we still have so many Daily Mail links on BLPs is a disgrace, although I'm slowly going through those too. Help is most earnestly welcomed.)
I hope this adequately answers GreenC's well-meaning defenses of The Sun. Further discussion of how to treat The Sun should probably go to WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Answering here because I probably won't say any more, The Sun links are now all gone at the hands of one determined editor for better or worse. WP:THESUN RfC is nuanced, it is deprecating not blacklisting. These terms concern two possible types of actions when a source has been found generally unreliable. With blacklisting actions we add a block filter and remove the links on-sight is usually acceptable. Deprecation is a softer approach, we add warning filters, and remove links only with discretion. You said you made discretion because links were removed "one at a time" (so do bots) but the rapid timestamps, scale of deletions and almost total annihilation ie. it is in effect a nuke. You said that is OK because the source is generally unreliable per the RfC, but this selectively interprets the RfC because it also says this closure does not permit wholesale nuking of all Sun references, without any discretion. It is circular reasoning to say the "discretion" is because the RfC says the source is unreliable! It makes the RfC self-canceling. There is an easier answer: the RfC never intended or recommended for someone to delete all the links "wholesale". RfCs are customized solutions based in policy vs. policy pages themselves which are generalized and can't guess the specifics of each case - RfCs have a high degree of consensus because they are specific to the issue. The RfC gave guidance for this case, it even guessed someone might do a wholesale deletion. Pinging the RfC closer @Winged Blades of Godric: in case they want to add anything and perfectly OK if not! -- GreenC 22:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
It's a crappy source, and by that I mean bottom of the barrel, perhaps one step above The Onion, so I don't understand what all the hubbub is about. When it comes to RSs, trust is key, and the moment you lose your reader's trust you'll pay hell getting it back. Fool me once... they say. If we've lost valuable information in the process, wouldn't it be a better use of one's time to simply go replace it with better sources? And if that's not possible, isn't that a good reason to be suspicious, in light of their reputation? If you think The Sun should be taken more seriously, then I would suggest first taking that up with The Sun. Play devil's advocate and insist, as a devoted reader, that they do something to renew their reputation. In the meantime, we can only play the cards we're dealt, provided they come from a clean deck. Zaereth (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
You are missing the point. The RfC says: "There has been a feeling among the opposing side that this can lead to a draconian purge of Sun references from WP without due discretion and that the newbies will bear the brunt of any over-zealous enforcement. Hence, I will urge all editors to exercise due restrain and use common sense; whilst dealing with removals. For an example, please harvest some efforts to source a cited-info to a reliable source, prior to removal of a DM cite. This "due restraint" has not been followed, no effort was made to source to a reliable source prior to removal. -- GreenC 04:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

GreenC - the Sun is a terrible source, and I maintain that pretty much every usage of it that I removed was bad. The one thing you haven't done above is list which removals you think you can show against the stated policy (WP:V) and strong guidelines (WP:RS) - and which replacements of this generally-non-reliable-source you think you can show the WP:BURDEN (which is policy) for. Even if you think rules-lawyering the wording of the close (which literally says generally prohibited and actively discouraged) will make a point, that can't override WP:V and WP:RS. Please list the specific removals you consider indefensible under WP:V, given that a deprecated source is prima facie unreliable - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I must note, I'm absolutely not claiming perfection here. I'm going to make mistakes, and I welcome correction on them! But I've seen a lot of Sun and DM sourcing, and almost all of it is actually bad and should be removed. Even if a fact is plausibly true (using my editorial judgement), we should not be putting a little blue number next to it as if it's well-cited, we should be noting it isn't well cited.
Also, I seem to get a lot more "thanks" clicks than reversions, and a lot less reversions when removing terrible sources than I do in my general editing. But YMMV - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

WE do not have to keep poorly sourced material. No issue with Davids actions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I've merged this discussion with the previous one on The Sun. — Newslinger talk 13:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The difference between blacklisting and deprecating is simply that when a source is blacklisted, you are not even permitted to re-instate it by the software. When a source is deprecated, you're warned against such addition and the burden is on you to get consensus that the deprecated source is suitable to back up whatever it is supposed to backup. So unless there was a debate on the talk page that resulted in a consensus that The Sun was appropriate to cite, it wasn't and removal is appropriate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way - help on clearing down the backlogs of deprecated sources, and thus improving Wikipedia, would be most welcomed! See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Clearing_down_review_backlogs_of_deprecated_sources:_call_for_help for a list with links - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - Removing a dubious source and replacing it with a CITATIONNEEDED template is terrible practice and any editor who is doing that en masse should knock it the hell off. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    +1. All replacing a bad source with {{cn}} does is hide the fact that the material in the article is dubious and reduce our ability to figure out where text came from. The point of declaring a source unreliable is to reduce the amount of possibly inaccurate info in our articles; I don't see what is accomplished by removing bad sources without the accompanying content apart from making it seem like we're doing a better job of not using unreliable sources than we really are. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    Feel free to go through and remove the claims entirely - David Gerard (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding generally reliable sources to the CAPTCHA whitelist[edit]

Should generally reliable sources on the perennial sources list be added to CAPTCHA whitelist, so that new and anonymous users can cite them in articles without needing to solve a CAPTCHA? — Newslinger talk 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Background[edit]

Wikipedia uses the ConfirmEdit extension, which is an anti-spam feature that requires IP editors and newly registered users to solve a CAPTCHA before they can add a citation or external link, unless the linked website is on the CAPTCHA whitelist. The CAPTCHA whitelist makes it easier for new editors to add content that references "known good sites", which are likely to be appropriate citations or external links, and unlikely to be spammed.

There are currently 103 domains operated by 76 sources that have been designated as generally reliable on the perennial sources list after being reviewed on this noticeboard:

103 domains operated by 76 generally reliable sources
aljazeera.com
aljazeera.net
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.co.uk
ap.org
apnews.com
theatlantic.com
avclub.com
bbc.co.uk
bbc.com
bellingcat.com
bloomberg.com
buzzfeednews.com
csmonitor.com
climatefeedback.org
cnet.com
cnn.com
theconversation.com
thedailybeast.com
dailydot.com
telegraph.co.uk
deadline.com
deadlinehollywooddaily.com
deseretnews.com
digitalspy.co.uk
digitalspy.com
economist.com
engadget.com
ew.com
ft.com
foxnews.com
theguardian.com
guardian.co.uk
theguardian.co.uk
haaretz.com
haaretz.co.il
thehill.com
hollywoodreporter.com
idolator.com
ign.com
independent.co.uk
ipsnews.net
ipsnoticias.net
ipscuba.net
theintercept.com
jamanetwork.com
latimes.com
metacritic.com
gamerankings.com
motherjones.com
thenation.com
nymag.com
vulture.com
thecut.com
grubstreet.com
nytimes.com
newyorker.com
newsweek.com
people.com
pewresearch.org
people-press.org
journalism.org
pewsocialtrends.org
pewforum.org
pewinternet.org
pewhispanic.org
pewglobal.org
playboy.com
politico.com
politifact.com
propublica.org
theregister.co.uk
reuters.com
rollingstone.com
rottentomatoes.com
sciencebasedmedicine.org
slate.com
slate.fr
snopes.com
splcenter.org
spectator.co.uk
spiegel.de
thewrap.com
time.com
thetimes.co.uk
thesundaytimes.co.uk
timesonline.co.uk
torrentfreak.com
tvguide.com
tvguidemagazine.com
usatoday.com
vanityfair.com
variety.com
venturebeat.com
theverge.com
vogue.com
vox.com
wsj.com
washingtonpost.com
weeklystandard.com
wired.com
wired.co.uk
zdnet.com

The above excludes:

Some of these domains are already on the CAPTCHA whitelist, and would not be added again.

Another request concerning this whitelist was made just over a week ago at "CAPTCHA exemption for reliable domains". — Newslinger talk 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Survey (CAPTCHA whitelist)[edit]

  • Support as proposer. The CAPTCHA whitelist improves accessibility for new and anonymous editors. The listed sources have already been vetted through this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support to improve accessibility and remove unnecessary red tape, these captcha processes are particularly difficult for visually impaired people, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support to improve the user experience and therefore editor retention. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but what's stopping users from editing WP:RSP to bypass this restriction? feminist (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
    • OK I see that this proposal doesn't actually add RSP links to the CAPTCHA whitelist in real time, but rather involves manually adding the links to the whitelist. Support. feminist (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - and I will consider to add this capability to User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-whitelist-Handler (well, I will likely copy-and-paste it to a next handler) to make it easier to handle these requests. IMHO, they should just be added with a rather low bar - as long as they are properly logged and tracked it should not impose many problems. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (CAPTCHA whitelist)[edit]

Notified: MediaWiki talk:Captcha-addurl-whitelist, Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability, Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 19:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks[edit]

Please explain to me, why I am not allowed to use Wikileaks as a reference. On Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Wikileaks Newslinger linked to a discussion about a Jehovas Witnesses letter that was not published on Wikileaks. How does that prove anything? If Wikileaks is not a reliable source, there must be some erroneous document on their website. Please either provide that, or let me use Wikileaks in a reference. Thank you. --Raphael1 21:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks does not edit (as far as I know) or even check veracity, it just publishes what is handed to it. We are not even sure much of what it publishes is genuine.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikileaks does no fact-checking. Therefore, they don't count as publishing for WP:V / WP:RS purposes, which requires sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Even if we did count that, they would still clearly be a WP:PRIMARY source (although I don't feel they can be cited in even that way - even a usable primary source has to do basic fact-checking.) Remember that anything noteworthy there will be cited elsewhere, and we can just use that secondary source instead. --Aquillion (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikileaks does indeed authenticate all documents it publishes and has never been proven wrong. Wikileaks does not claim, that all documents it publishes only contain factual correct statements, but they do check, that the documents are genuine and come from its respective authors. I.e. the discussion here refers to a document put together by the pilots union. Wikileaks doesn't claim that the list is correct, in fact it even states, that it "may contain inaccuracies". So yes, Wikileaks should be classified as a reliable source for WP:PRIMARY sources. --Raphael1 16:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Raphael1, authenticating is not the same as fact-checking. Pretty much by definition, anything that ends up at Wikileaks got there because someone has an axe to grind. Guy (help!) 23:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
The motives of Wikileaks sources are irrelevant. It is a fact, that Wikileaks has never been caught publishing faked documents. And that is all that should matter to an online encyclopedia, that tries to publish true information. —Raphael1 21:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
​Responding to "tries to publish true information", you may find Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth to be a useful read. — Newslinger talk 17:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Only source Wikileaks if the information you are citing from them has been confirmed. Otherwise, not appropriate. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 18:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikileaks has a robust process for authenticating documents prior to publication. As far as I know no one has ever claimed any of the documents it has published was fake. It is therefore a reliable source for original documents. Wikileaks does not usually provide much commentary on the documents it publishes. On notable occasions it has partnered with media organisations to publish documents and under this arrangement the commentary is provided by journalists from the other organisations. Wikileaks has created tools that allow researchers to use the Wikileaks databases more easily. I would regard Wikileaks as close to a primary source for documents which means that generally we would prefer to use analysis of the documents from another source. However there will be occasions where it is useful to link to the original document in the Wikileaks database and, as pointed out by an editor below, there is a template for this, at least for the cables release. Burrobert (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Re the claim that Wikileaks has never been proven wrong, there is another WL-related discussion further down the page where this article was cited, which includes clear instances of WL publishing fake documents. It also often includes misleading and inaccurate summaries of its documents. I agree that it should be treated with caution as a primary source and not be used without independent verification of its content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to repeat myself but, since the Wired article has been mentioned, here is my comment from the section below:
Yes there have been general claims that Wikileaks has published fake documents. It is clear why this claim may suit some people or organisations. I haven't seen a case where a specific fake document was identified. There are two parts of the linked article that mention fake documents on Wikileaks. The first mention relates to "speculation" but no fake document was identified in the article.

When the site's first leak, a secret Islamic order allegedly written by Sheikh Hassan Aweys, one of the leaders of the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia, went live in December 2006, there was speculation that it was fake; Wikileaks' credibility was questioned in the press.

The second mention relates to an anonymous informer who again does not identify a specific fake document.

There is fake content on Wikileaks. A whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted to submitting fabricated documents to Wikileaks to see what it would do. The documents were flagged as potential fakes, but the whistleblower felt that the decision to publish the documents had "an impact on their credibility".

The article does describe the efforts that Wikileaks makes to ensure the authenticity of documents it publishes.
Burrobert (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Newslaundry on OpIndia[edit]

Is Newslaundry (newslaundry.com) a reliable source for the following content in the OpIndia article, removed in Special:Diff/944447105?

A January 2020 report by the media watchdog Newslaundry noted the portal to contain several inflammatory headlines targeting the leftists, liberals and Muslims.[1] Mainstream media and the political opposition (esp. Indian National Congress) were oft-criticized; posts published by OpIndia Hindi from November 15 to 29 were located to be invariably situated against any criticism of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party.[1] On February 12, OpIndia had organised an ideological seminar featuring prominent figures from right wing intelligentsia[2]; Newslaundry noted the seminar to have spread communally charged conspiracy theories about the Kathua rape case, equate the Shaheen Bagh protests to formation of mini-Pakistan and engage in other Islamophobic discourse.[2]

References

  1. ^ a b Kumar, Basant (3 January 2020). "Fake news, lies, Muslim bashing, and Ravish Kumar: Inside OpIndia's harrowing world". Newslaundry. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
  2. ^ a b Tiwari, Ayush (16 February 2020). "I braved 'Bharat Bodh' and lived to tell the tale : Muslim-baiters, rape-deniers, livelihood-destroyers, apologists of religious violence — the Opindia and My Nation event had'em all". Newslaundry. Retrieved 17 February 2020.

See related discussion on Talk:OpIndia. — Newslinger talk 15:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Do they have an editorial policy? I cannot find it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics, Talk:OpIndia. — Newslinger talk 15:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Newslaundry is an unreliable source with a clear bias and no indication of factual reporting. We should not allow Wikipedia becoming a platform to document feuds between the partisan sources in question. Shashank5988 (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable: According to this, they won the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for their "investigative reporting".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable According to their about page they have won a lot of awards recently on the subject of investigation reporting and their work covering gender and human rights. But I couldn't find an editorial hierarchy. According to their hiring page, it looks like their reporters cover a variety of areas rather than having a "beat" and there isn't information about leadership. But I think the awards count for a lot. Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - No information on leadership or editorial policy. As a new media site much like OpIndia, no certification from IFCN regarding fact-checking (which AltNews, cited in the article under criticism, has).Pectoretalk 06:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable We have no way of knowing if the editor also writes for it, they appear to have no editorial policy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • They do provide some information at this webpage. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The extent of the corruption exposed in this report is impressive, and the research involved multiple Right to Information requests. "The Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards, the most prestigious annual event in the Indian media calendar, is a recognition of the highest standards of journalism" in India, just as the Pulitzer Prize is the most renowned form of recognition for American journalism. Newslaundry also won two Red Ink Awards, in 2018 for their coverage of the Kaveri River water dispute, and in 2019 for their coverage of a police cover-up of civilian casualties in Sukma.

It's misleading to compare Newslaundry to OpIndia just because neither is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Newslaundry is a news site, not a fact-checking site, and the IFCN only certifies fact-checking sites that are "dedicated solely to checking the discourse of politicians or detecting viral hoaxes in social platforms". Additionally, OpIndia was explicitly rejected by the IFCN in 2019, while Newslaundry never applied for certification.

Finally, Newslaundry puts a byline with an author name on each of the pieces they publish. That's better than The Times of India (RSP entry), and it's sufficient for a generally reliable publication. Newslaundry is like the Indian version of The Intercept (RSP entry), and has even more prestigious awards. — Newslinger talk 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Reliable - per Newslinger. In addition, it also doesn't sum up that they would be factually inaccurate while also winning high prestige awards, I've yet to come across an allegation of misreporting against them which even mainstream media agencies face from time to time. Though there may be a degree of editorialisation in their content so care should be taken regarding that. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable has a dedicated staff, uses bylines, has won awards for its journalism, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - No editorial policy available on the website. Concocted click-bait stories based on imagination. Retracted after clarification from the office of President of India. It published fiction instead of fake news. Not trustworthy.
    1. Newslaundry spreads fake news about president's puri visit Shubham2019 (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
      Newslaundry was covering an alleged event that was initially covered by The Times of India, News18, and Times Now – other reliable sources. When the press secretary to the President denied the incident, Newslaundry officially retracted the story, demonstrating a strong reputation for error-correction, which is identified in WP:NEWSORG as a hallmark of a reliable source.

      As an aside, you're using "The True Picture" (thetruepicture.org, formerly thetruepicture.in), a site that was thoroughly discredited as a questionable source by a 2018 investigation from The Indian Express and a 2018 report from Boom (a fact checker that is certified by the IFCN). The Quint has additional coverage of the exposés. These analyses show that "The True Picture" is closely affiliated with BlueKraft Digital Foundation, a company that "has been involved in promoting various government initiatives, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s book ‘Exam Warriors.’" From this, it's clear that "The True Picture" is unreliable and has a strong conflict of interest. — Newslinger talk 09:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

      This reply is clearly not satisfactory, Newslaundry concocted a casteist angle in the issue. None of the articles cited give a hint of this angle. This was the reason they had to retract their imaginative story while others did not. It was clearly written to promote enimity between the communities and cater to a certain narrative to attack the government.As a side note, this kind of ideological reinforcement is being done by portals like Newslaundry, Altnews,Wire,Quint,Boom,NDTV. All of which are reinforcing each other's position and being cited in a circular manner to counter/manage the narrative or ideological resistance being provided by the portals of contradictory ideology. OpIndia, Republic,Swarajya, TheTruePicture,MediaBias fact check, Fact Hunt all are being campaigned against in wikipedia. The articles which attack the left wing portals are certainly written in Right Wing Portal and vice versa. Yet only one way citations are allowed i.e. against Right Wing Portal. Therefore there is no WP:NPOV.

Either wikipedia has a policy of not allowing different ideological point of views or we seriously need to re-evaluate why all right wing portals are outright dismissed as unreliable/deprecated/questionable and left wing portals are treated as gospels which can't be wrong and don't need to be questioned. Shubham2019 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Bias is not a reason to reject a source. We dismiss sources that can be shown to knowingly and willingly publish falsehoods which they do not retract.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Your argument against Newslaundry depends solely on criticism from a questionable source ("The True Picture") against a properly labeled "opinion" piece from Newslaundry. As the piece from Newslaundry was retracted before it was archived, your claims are unverifiable. The fact that Newslaundry is willing to retract errors is a positive attribute. Compare that to OpIndia, which has yet to retract their coverage of a fake letter falsely attributed to a Muslim body president, for example.

If the right-wing sites you listed were reliable, they would be recognized with awards and favorable coverage from other reliable sources. But, the IFCN – a politically neutral organization – rejected OpIndia in 2018, while it certified Alt News in 2019 and Boom (boomlive.in) in 2019. Newslaundry won the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award and two Red Ink Awards, while OpIndia has never won any significant awards. These are some of the reasons Newslaundry, Alt News, and Boom are considered reliable, while OpIndia is not. Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) was discussed three times on this noticeboard, and is considered unreliable because it is self-published, not because it had any discernible overall bias.

The neutral point of view policy requires us to represent "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (emphasis added). — Newslinger talk 16:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I wrote to the Newslaundry editorial team and this is what I heard back...I don't think there is any problem sharing the relevant portion of the email message:
Thanks for reaching out.
We are currently redesigning our website and we'll have a page explaining our editorial policy on the upgraded site.
Of course, like any credible news organisation, our work goes through a series of editorial filters before it is published. I believe the quality of our work testifies to this. Mr Raman Kirpal, cced in this mail, is our managing editor. He's an award-winning journalist with several decades of experience in the industry and he takes the final call on what appears on Newslaundry.
Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I inspected the source code of older versions of Newslaundry's home page, and noticed that Newslaundry switched its content management system from a (possibly in-house) platform based on AngularJS as of 16 January 2020 to Quintype as of 22 January 2020. While most of the site has already been migrated to their new platform, there are a few pages that are currently only accessible through archived versions. This includes Newslaundry's About Us page, which includes a list of Newslaundry's staff and a list of Newslaundry's owners (with percentage ownership specified for each owner). This transparency reflects favorably on Newslaundry, and I expect to see the editorial policy when the site finishes migrating to the Quintype platform. — Newslinger talk 01:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable per Newslinger and others. I'm impressed by the apparent transparency (website transition confusion not withstanding) and their response to Liz. My only comment is that it might be, perhaps, that we should take any news items towards OpIndia (and similar sites) with a grain of salt per the concerns about an apparent on-going spat. Waggie (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable Do they have any Editorial Policy? Half baked stories with facts missing in most of there reporting, completely biased source. Santoshdts (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable They don't have a well defined editorial policy. The news reporting is mixed with biased opinions. They generally lampoon and criticises other media sources. There is a clear lack of objectivity. They have also published fake news in the past.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    Do you have a reliable source to back up the "fake news" claim? — Newslinger talk 06:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    They published a news story on the President of India, which was denied by the President's office. Newslaundry is not important enough to be covered by other reliable media portals. There are a few sites like these which are engaged in trashing each other online based on ideological differences, they publish hit-pieces on each other at random intervals, their editors and reporters fight on twitter. There's a clear lack of objectivity.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    Your comment strikes a false balance between Newslaundry and the near-unanimously condemned OpIndia, and excuses OpIndia's unreliability as "ideological differences". Unlike OpIndia, Newslaundry corrects or retracts all of its stories that need doing so. — Newslinger talk 04:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Limited reliable use for IMDB - DoB and DoD[edit]

User blocked for sockpuppetry, no need to continue discussion. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 18:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've read thru many of the discussions regarding imdb, and would like to open up for discussion using it for a very limited use. While most of imdb is user added, and I will concede filled with errors - I've found many myself. But due to lawsuits it has tightened up it's dob and dod and what's required to add them.

This is where their policy for adding and what's acceptable. imdb dob guidance

I would also say to not use imdb as a primary source unless no other source is available. I've recently run across a couple of wiki pages where there is no dob but imdb has it. Doing searches fails to find any other sources. Thoughts.Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

IMO, per WP:DOB we should not use imdb for that. Usable, apart from the usual decent secondary sources, is something selfpublished (WP:BLPSELFPUB), like subjects website or (confirmed) social media. Not WP:BLPPRIMARY stuff. But there is no problem with not having a DOB in an article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that not having a dob is ok because it can result in confusing two (or more) individuals. have to be honest, imdb has really tightened up its policies on dob. i have submitted dob's to imdb using sources lists on wikipedia and they were rejected. i think the age discrimination lawsuit that they fought made their lawyers use a ruler on them. the problem is that only ones since their changing procedures can be assured of being tightened so ones that are already out there could be a problem. unfort for the dob's i looked for there was nothing on selfpub either as i did check. i have to laugh because i'm older than dirt, bald as an eagle, and really don't care but some guard it apparently very tight. i guess maybe once they die and go onto the ssa death list but that could take 60-80 years.Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Medcitynews.com[edit]

Is Medcitynews.com can be used for citations as a reliable source? --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Some not reliable. They do some native advertising which is typical for business journals. An example native is this article. It says "Sponsored post". This is a required flag by the FCC to notify readers it is an advertisement. -- GreenC 13:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. First, a minor observation: With respect to GreenC's comment, I'd like to point out that the FCC does not regulate websites. The FTC regulates commercial activity, but its track record on native advertising hasn't been one of aggressive enforcement.
After looking at MedCityNews' media kit, the more significant issue that I see is that they have loopholes established to avoid native advertising enforcement. One example: Sponsoring a panel session at one of their events will get you on the panel as a speaker and an article about the panel "written by MCN Editorial [and] published on MedCityNews.com" (no disclaimer needed!). It doesn't say how much panel sponsorship costs, but sponsored posts on the website start at $3,500.
To summarize: This looks pretty clearly like a pay-to-play operation. Dorama285 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
"Editorial" content is in a different category from reporting. Editorials are non-neutral and promotional by design (Editors give their opinion about who to vote for because those politicians match the politics of the editors). If it is marked an editorial it is no problem because we don't use it anyway. They are open about native advertising, marking some content as sponsored. Otherwise it would be like a conspiracy theory, they must be hiding something because their revenue model depends on some native advertising pieces, thus none of the content can be trusted, and we can't trust the government to do their job so we should ban the site. -- GreenC 17:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy! Just a business model. I noticed their marketing kit also offers "bylines or ghostwritten articles" and "eBooks and whitepapers." (It doesn't say what they will ghostwrite, but it seems pretty broad.) There's a significant grey area they can safely operate within. Larger news websites are often more transparent because A) They want to be credible and B) They are regulatory targets. When you only get 1.25 million page views monthly (which is what MedCity claims), the only readers are pretty much all people clicking through from Wikipedia. Dorama285 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Considering it is used in 35 articles on Wikipedia they must not be doing much business :) Anyway, I don't thing we should use supposition without some evidence. The articles are mostly signed by journalists with a staff page with their picture and bios, it doesn't look shady to me as if they are not disclosing native advertising. -- GreenC 13:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Business Journals / bizjournals.com[edit]

American City Business Journals publishes 40 print business journals in the USA with titles such as Birmingham Business Journal and Boston Business Journal under the bizjournals.com domain. Some of these have won independent press awards for example Birmingham Business Journal won awards from the Alabama Press Association the official state press association.

They do native advertising, in fact advertise they do native advertising. This can be a reason to not use it as a reliable source. However, the company confirmed they only started doing some native advertising in 2016, and only when it is flagged "[sponsored content]".

Quote: "We label all native as “sponsored content” – the preferred FTC labelling. We take one of the more conservative approaches in the industry with very clear, prominent and transparent labelling." -- Source

Given this I believe it to be a reliable source, except when there is native advertising flag. The existence of some native advertising, clearly marked and disclosed, should not eliminate 40 award-winning print journals with decades of history at least since 1980. The domain is used in over 10,000 articles (can't count beyond that without trouble due to API limits). -- GreenC 20:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

GreenC, is there a discussion where the reliability of Business Journals is disputed? I've long considered Business Journals to be reliable, and have routinely used it as a source. feminist (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
feminist Not really. Someone in another discussion said it was unreliable because of native advertising and pointed to RSN as the justification. I couldn't find anything definitive at RSN and so made this post to clarify the situation, in case of future searches of RSN for this domain, since the quote above is key to understanding the situation. I felt it was important to make this post since the domain is widely used on WP and their use of native advertising is somewhat new as of 4 years ago. -- GreenC 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Reliable in my view as the native ad pieces are clearly marked, even the Guardian has some paid for pieces (which are also clearly marked), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally Reliable - Bizjournals is likely well-known to most WP:NPR and WP:AFC participants as it (for pay) churns out press releases and propagates native advertising for companies, but I never saw an indication the information itself was unreliable. The reason I would consider the source generally reliable is that there are some occasions where the site - acting in its role as a paid service - will publish WP:PRIMARY information which should be viewed with caution. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Scope of WP:MEDRS[edit]

Lately I have been involved in a dispute concerning the scope of WP:MEDRS and the applicability of WP:OR when sources are cited. Case in point is the article blond, where MEDRS was cited as a reason to remove information based on a cite from The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature and about the appearance of the gene for blond hair in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, but User:Hunan201p has been removing information from a large number of articles on similar grounds, often citing WP:OR, when actual sources are cited. I have had a conversation with the user on their TP, in which User:Flyer22 Frozen took the same view as the user in question, but did not answer my objections. The question thus is, is MEDRS applicable to studies concerning ethnic origins, appearance of genes fro blond hair in Mesolithic hunter gatherers. Am I misunderstanding WP:biomedical information or is it being construed overly broad? Some other articles recently affected are:

These are just recent examples. The users edit history contains many more examples. Kleuske (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

In instances in which I have pulled statements from pages based on WP:OR, as in Uzbeks, it is because there was noting in the paper that supported the statement on Wikipedia. That's original research. So when someone (in this case, a known sockpupoeteer) adds a statement to an article about "linguistic assimilation", but the study cited contains no content about assimilation or even the word "assimilation", that's original research. I have tried to inform this Kleuske guy that WP:SCIRS makes clear that genetic studies about phenotypes (intelligence, hair color) have to be sourced per WP:MEDRS guidelines. If he keeps restoring WP:OR and primary research papers as he's been doing, he should definitely be blocked because he's already been warned. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Hunan201p: WP:SCIRS is an essay, not a policy. I do hope you understand the difference between an essay and a policy. Besides the word “phenotype” does not appear in SCIRS, that’s in WP:biomedical information. Also paraphrasing sources can result in particular words not appearing in the source, without it being OR. As a rule of thumb, if reputable sources are cited, it is not OR. To top it off, you’ve made it exceedingly clear you understand very little about Wikipedia policy, which is why I do not take your word for it, but sought third party advice. Kleuske (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:SCIRS contains the word "phenotype". You're either confused or you're not reading what I'm posting for you. So pay attention: click this link to go to WP:SCIRS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)
Now hit ctrl+F and type "pheno". It will take you to this quote:
However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS.
It's as plain as day for all to see. And by the way, WP:SCIRS reflects consensus. The consensus is that race, anatomy and genetic articles have to be sourced per WP:MEDRS. - Hunan201p (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ermenrich: @Flyer22 Frozen:: Would like to inform you both of this user's activity here. Now seems like the time to get a more specific statement over at WP:MEDRS since some people apparenly believe that genetic studies on ancestry or phenotype aren't biomedical information. - Hunan201p (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

For a number of reasons statements like this need to be held approximately to MEDRS standards. This particular book is not a reliable secondary scientific analysis of human genetics. Of course, primary sources are also generally not useful here because any study may have all variety of flaws or limitations interpretation, so we can't simply find a primary source through a secondary source of this quality either. Whether or not you want to see this as specifically MEDRS-related, or SCIRS as Hunan201p points out, we simply cannot be using popular science books (from 25 years ago no less) for statements of fact on human population genetics or anything related to that. There are potentially multiple scientific fields that one might draw from on this topic, but it is clearly one that demands the highest quality and most current information. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

CNN[edit]

Non-admin closure This is a forum to discuss reliablity, not a general forum to discuss partisanship. WP:NOTFORUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What would you call the CNN?

  • Partisan
  • Bipartisan
  • Non-partisan
--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I think CNN is a reliable source but it's extremely partisan just like Fox News.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keeping in mind that bias does not make a source unreliable, it has become more partisan, and typical in some proportion to the left as Fox News gets more partisan towards the right. (like, if you could put units on a ideological scale, for every two steps Fox moves to the right, CNN moves 1 step to the left, at MOST). --Masem (t) 02:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) source reliability[edit]

Does anyone have reliable sources (https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202002/21/WS5e4f30e6a31012821727930c.html from China Daily) that linked to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the 2019-20 Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak? --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking if chinadaily.com.cn is a reliable source? -- GreenC 13:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Is New Scientist a reliable source for 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak?[edit]

As the title states. A search through the archives shows that New Scientist is indeed considered a reliable source. It seems to me that there should be no problem using New Scientist as a source for 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Given that this is a newsworthy event of international importance (and not, say, an article on coronavirus or any of the specific related illnesses per se), WP:MEDRS might not even be entirely relevant. Regardless, I think New Scientist is an appropriate source. Thoughts? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a reliable source in general, but like most popular magazines doing science vulgarization, it depends on what it's used for. If New Scientist makes a recommendation to do X, that really should fall well below the recommendations of the CDC or WHO. And rapidly evolving situations also means that information gets outdated quickly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
How about this article that includes estimates of the fatality rate? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
It is a nuanced article explaining the difficulties but not making absolutist claims. Depends how it is worded in the article. -- GreenC 20:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Good research applies: use the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Imagine you were writing a speech for a public official on the virus outbreak. Would you use as a source an article by a reporter with no particular expertise on the subject or would you use the World Health Organization or similar sources? You haven't said what text you plan to add, which always affects rs. While MEDRS doesn't cover everything in the article, you need to ensure that it does not apply here. Commentary on the reliability of reported statistics certainly should only be sourced to an expert. TFD (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Aggregate polling vis-a-vis individual polls[edit]

I have a proposal for a change to Wikipedia policy / guidelines (maybe a change to Manual of Style guidelines or Reliable Source guidelines). I want to propose something along the lines of: "When possible, use aggregate polling rather than individual polls". I've noticed that the tendency of some editors to use individual polls when aggregate polls exist creates unnecessary headaches, edit-warring and tendentious editing. The big issue is that editors may cherry-pick (whether intentionally or not) individual polls that are consistent with a particular narrative even though these polls are inconsistent with other polling. I've seen this in both the 2016 and 2020 elections, as well as in various individual congressional races over the same period. There is no upside to using an individual poll when there is aggregate polling on the exact same issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Clearly, in non-list articles, aggregate polls should be favored over one-off polls. This is for the same reason we generally favor meta-analyses over individual studies for medical content — it reduces the risk of citing outliers. Citing aggregate polls also avoids the "house effect" of individual polling companies. And it's more consistent with an encyclopedic summary style. Neutralitytalk 19:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Any type of polls can be included if they are from reliable sources.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A month ago, you appeared to express support for creating a policy change (rather than implementation of this on a single article), so that this commonsensical proposal would get accepted across Wikipedia articles.[10] Now, you appear to insist that no policy change is necessary. Why the change of heart? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • As for the substance of your comment, no one is claiming that an individual poll is necessarily unreliable. The argument is that aggregate polling will not only be more reliable and have greater long-term encyclopedic value, but it avoids cherry-picking of polls, debates about which polls to include/exclude and tendentious editing. This is not rocket science: let's say there have been 20 polls that measure support for Bernie Sanders in the democratic primary (a page you've edited a lot on)... which of those 20 polls should we use (because it's certainly not feasible to cover them all)? Someone who wants to portray Bernie as unpopular might pick his two worst polls whereas a supporter may pick his two best polls. Why isn't the commonsensical solution to use aggregate polling, and thus take the discretion from individual editors and reduce edit-warring and pointless bickering? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
We already have two policies that should suffice: Due and undue weight and RS. Specifically, we should emphasize the polls that mainstream media deem most important, which could include aggregate polling, and ignore polls that are considered outliers or insignificant. Unfortunately, any set of rules is only as good as the editors applying them. If editors come with the motivation to make Sanders look good or bad, then they'll find excuses for whatever they do. Even worse, the existence of multiple rules confuses editors and allows tendentious editors to find loopholes. There's no reason to think that aggregate polls are more reliable. There are competing aggregates and they can be skewed by including outliers. Also, they cover polls over a period of time. So for example they could include polls taken both before and after candidates dropped out. Polls for Supertuesday for example showed Biden doing much better once Pete and Klobuchar dropped out, hence aggregate polls would be misleading. TFD (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Web resources[edit]

Are the following websites can be used as a reliable sources?

https://canadianautodealer.ca http://www.canadianautoworld.ca https://www.prnewswire.com https://www.genequityco.com https://www.crunchbase.com https://rocketreach.co/ http://theontariodealer.com/ https://www.autosuccessonline.com/ https://www.wardsauto.com/ https://www.crunchbase.com https://www.capterra.com https://paulgillrie.com/ https://calgaryherald.com/

Thank you!Nice0903 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

As instructed at the top of the page, this noticeboard is for obtaining input on the reliability of sources in context. We cannot give up an absolute up-or-down answer just based on a list of URLs in isolation. It depends on what you want to cite these for. Crunchbase has been formally deprecated, so it not really be used except in extremely limited circumstances. PR Wire is just a collection of republished press releases, so it cannot be used except for WP:ABOUTSELF content. Most of the others seem like commercial websites and thus generally should not be used. The Ontario Dealer is a publication of an industry group (the Used Car Dealer's Association of Ontario), and doesn't seem particularly good except in limited circumstances where the trade press might be cited (i.e., WP:ABOUTSELF or noncontroversial content within the area of expertise, like number of used car dealerships in Ontario or something). Again, depends on context. Neutralitytalk 21:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS problems at Spermarche[edit]

This concerns [11] and [12].

The first diff declared that the Planned Parenthood website (under "Ask the expert") would be unreliable. I did not revert because I am not completely sure that Planned Parenthood would be WP:RS. Do notice that I had stated it in compliance with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

The second diff has restored in the voice of Wikipedia medical claims based solely upon WP:PRIMARY sources. As far as I know, WP:MEDRS does not allow us to proclaim medical facts having only primary studies to rely upon. So the claim From various sources, it appears that spermarche occurs between 13 and 15 years of age in most cases. is bogus. Who analyzed those primary studies? Wikipedia editors did and they are not allowed to do it.

I had initiated a discussion at Talk:Spermarche#Planned Parenthood, but I did not receive any input, be it thumbs up or thumbs down. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your concerns. As you quoted, we can't use only primary studies. Those here are corrobored by others secondary sources, and they don't contradict each others. What's the problem?--Aréat (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Aréat: The bogus claim From various sources, it appears that spermarche occurs between 13 and 15 years of age in most cases. is WP:Verified to primary source 1 and primary source 2. And you have even dared to state it as a medical fact in the voice of Wikipedia, despite being told that it is a WP:MEDRS violation. The problem is that we (the Wikipedia community) do not trust you to analyze primary medical sources. You have not been singled out for special treatment: we trust no Wikipedia editor to do that. And no, they are not being corroborated: according to 1986 Year Book of Pediatrics more than two thirds of boys reached spermarche at the age of 13. So "between 13 and 15 years of age" means slower development than the WP:SECONDARY or WP:TERTIARY sources say. It means being among the 30% slowest developing boys. And you should mind that that's a figure from 35 years ago, as it appears that the age of spermarche decreased meanwhile due to overabundance of food. As the saying goes, Cite reviews, don't write them. Moshang, Oski and Stockman are allowed to analyze WP:PRIMARY sources, you aren't. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this is not a difficult one. From various sources, it appears that spermarche occurs between 13 and 15 years of age in most cases is not a conclusion lifted from a cited source. It is a conclusion an editor made after reading the cited sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Youth Ki Awaaz[edit]

Youth Ki Awaaz is being used as a source in a handful of articles (73 articles) over here at the English Wikipedia. Youth Ki Awaaz is a user-generated crowd funded platform (with internal checks) in India and I wondered if it was reliable enough to be used extensively over here during referencing in the future. DTM (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

While it does have Community Guidelines, the content is not generated by trained journalists, but by independent users. I am not sure how much content is verified? I would say it is unreliable. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Youth Ki Awaaz is a community-based thought sharing platform/website[1]. The guidelines describe it YKA is a people’s platform. That means thousands use it daily to share their thoughts and opinions[...]. Opinionated articles are published by anyone without any verification on this platform. Vishal Telangre (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Not reliable. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Obviously unreliable per WP:UGC. buidhe 19:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Muflihun.com[edit]

I see that muflihun.com is used in our Wikipedia articles for Islamic material. Recently, I saw Koreangauteng add a muflihun.com source. But it doesn't seem that muflihun.com passes our WP:Reliable sources guideline.

Thoughts? No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Muflihun.com describes its editorial processes.[13] Muflihun.com is cited within Wikipedia.[14] Koreangauteng (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
In regards to the hadith in question[15]. It (and similar) are available from other sources. It is not the ṣaḥīḥ, ḥasan, or ḍaʻīf of any given hadith. It is the reliability of the source which publishes it. I appreciate the matter is sensitive but WP:NOTCENSORED Koreangauteng (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I already noted that it's cited within Wikipedia. That it's cited within Wikipedia doesn't make it a WP:Reliable source. And why cite this website instead of a reputable media source or academic source? This isn't about WP:NOTCENSORED. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this source, but being cited in Wikipedia is an indication of absolutely nothing. Bad sources are used all the time on Wikipedia. But if it's bad and cited, what that means is that it should be removed, not cited more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I pointed editors at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources here for more opinions. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Is Sunnah.com a WP:Reliable source [16] ? Koreangauteng (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Not a reliable source, either one. Muflihun's About page shows that it is someone's personal website and thus fails WP:SPS. It is also sectarian (i.e. promotes a particular POV within Islam). Sunnah.com is of anonymous origin and so is also unreliable. Note, though, that much of Muflihun.com and nearly all of Sunnah.com appear to just be the text of Islamic hadith or other religious texts. Many of the pre-existing cites to these sites are probably citing hadith (and note: I agree that pre-existing cites on Wikipedia count for absolutely nothing in terms of reliability). Might it be okay to cite these websites to cite hadith? No, they are not trustworthy, and we should not be citing hadith anyway per WP:NOR, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:PRIMARY. It helps to analogize it to Christianity, with which many of us are more familiar. Would it be proper for an article explaining the Christian viewpoint on marriage to just cite the Bible, or, say, Catholic saints that Protestants don't view as authoritative? No, because these sources have varying interpretations and/or are viewed as authoritative by only some parts of Christianity. For an editor to interpret scripture is original research. To cite a figure viewed as authoritarive by only some Christians and treat his POV as "the" Christian POV constitutes religious evangelism. The same hazard exists when covering Islam. As always, we avoid this by sticking to sources that meet WP:RS and WP:PSTS, especially academic sources. Crossroads -talk- 06:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Bouhdiba[edit]

  • Is Sexuality in Islam by Abdelwahab Bouhdiba [17], a Reliable Source? > page 76 > "Whenever one sleeps with a houri . . one finds her a virgin. Indeed the penis of the Chosen One never slackens. The erection is eternal. To each coitus corresponds a pleasure, a delicious sensation, so incredible in this vile world that if one experienced it one would faint." Koreangauteng (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    • You're not helping your case by starting to quote out of context: what you quote above, is from the author quoting another author (properly indicated by Bouhdiba, but not by yourself in your misquote above). See [18], 2nd paragraph. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is at first glance an RS on the words of (I'm guessing) Al-Suyuti (15th century). That may or may not have a place in an article somewhere. Context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Al-Suyuti[edit]

  • Is the The Strong Delusion: Invasion of an Otherworldly Islam [19] quoting Al-Suyuti a RS, for content within Sexual intercourse#Ethical, religious, and legal views ? Koreangauteng (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Short answer: no. The author's field of expertise seems to be extraterrestrials, which would mean you'd have to take this to WP:FTN to see whether the author passes the WP:FRINGE criteria (short answer: quite unlikely), and even if that works out it seems very unlikely that one would take an author writing outside his field of expertise as a source, while there are appropriate & reliable sources written within the field of expertise matching the one likely acceptable for the "Sexual intercourse" article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
In addition to that, iUniverse is a self-publishing company. Anyone can write a book and publish it there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Two points[edit]

1. 2020 society and Islam

Irrespective of the commentator's notability and / or qualifications in this area, material relating to 2020 society and Islam (if it is thought to be controversial) is rejected for variations on these reasons [20] Point 3. On the other hand, material deemed to be supportive of Islam is . . .

2. The proposal

It is proposed to cite 'Abdelwahab Bouhdiba' in Sexuality in Islam [21] page 76, quoting Al-Suyuti, published by Routledge within the Wiki article.[22] Koreangauteng (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen I take it that there is no disagreement with the above proposal. Koreangauteng (talk)
The Islam related discussion in the section seems to be of a general nature so discussing the specific views of of a single scholar in the section seems out of context and rather discordant. Perhaps the article could say something along the lines of "Some/or Scholar X,Y have provided vivid, imaginative descriptions of sexual intercourse in paradise (cite)", then again the section is supposed to be about Islam and Sexual intercourse, not Islam and Sexual intercourse in the afterlife. Thoughts by other editors?119.155.38.8 (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
HaeB Could I ask IP editor 119.155.38.8 | 119.155.40.215 | 119.155.50.185 | 119.155.36.215 | 39.37.152.160 | 39.37.166.23 | 39.37.128.82 from Lahore Pakistan, who follows me around, to please create and use a Wikipedia account. WP:ACCOUNT [23] Koreangauteng (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Offtopic, but I only started reviewing your edits (they are only a click away), after you permitted for them to be tracked, (point 12 of your recommendations). The frequent IP changes are annoying to me as well. I am not sure why this happens. Other IP users have stable addresses for months. Will take note of your recommendation. Regards119.155.21.118 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The Canadian Writing Research Collaboratory[edit]

Editing the new Jessie Kerr Lawson, I noticed this [24] ref, which I haven't come across before. It has plenty of info for the article, but I'm unsure how we should look at it, so I'd like opinions. Per aboutpage etc [25][26], is it generally reliable, use with caution, wiki-like and EL at best, WP:N-good or what? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources for putting into disuse an image[edit]

Hello, I need some help in a dispute which involves an undesired file used in the article Samuel Fritz.

The person who runs this article states that I have to provide "reliable sources" in order to delete an undesired fantasy portrait of the person described in the article. The file in question is an unhistorical and inaccurate illustration work of no encyclopedic value. For details see ongoing debate on my talk page. The same issue also involves the use of the same image in the article Cambeba.

In my understanding, the claims do not make sense. It is User:Cmacauley who wants to have this content to be in the article(s), so he has to prove its reliability. There is no way to do so, because the portrait was made in the thirtieth of the 20th century (see description page of the file), 200 years after Samuel Fritz's death, and there is no reliable source nor any hint that it is based on contemporaneous pictorial documents from the 18th century. If the user wants to save that image, it would be his turn to prove that it is not a fantasy portrait (which is a virtually impossible thing to do). It is not me to give reliable sources for deleting the undesired image.

Since I am not very familiar with Rules and Regulations on English Wikipedia (I am a user from another language version), I need help to get @Cmacauley understand that and refrain from blocking our conversation with unreasonable claims. Thank you.--Jordi (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You do not need an RS to remove an image, or anything. You cannot prove a negative.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the information.--Jordi (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven is right (for unverifiable content). The verifiability policy states that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (WP:BURDEN). — Newslinger talk 13:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The image in question is sourced to some blog (not available now and certainly not a reliable source), so it is the other editor, who should provide reliable source for disputed content. Note later depiction not based on reality is not a problem in general, many articles about historical figures use works of art created centuries after the death of their subject. Pavlor (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, the first burden of proof is to demonstrate that the image is in the public domain or freely licensed. If we have literally no remotely reliable source whatsoever for the image, we can't very well do that. Though things may work out somewhat differently for own works, this is not one of those cases. GMGtalk 16:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it is no problem to use works of art even created long after the death of their subject. Then you can usually say in the image subtext Painting by XY (1Zth century), showing King Alfred XX in his golden robe, or sth like that. But in this case it is not a work of art but a photorealistic illustration (drawing or painting) without any author or context given, showing a human face with a white beard, and affirming that this is Samuel Fritz. The reader does not realize that it is just a fantasy portrait, as he would in the former case. The other problem, of course, is the lack of proof for public domain status, which is more a problem to be resolved on Commons, I think.--Jordi (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The image in question is from a portrait painted by a Peruvian artist, which is displayed at the Charles University in Prague. According to at least two sources, neither of them blogs, the portrait was "made based on the descriptions of his contemporaries." (See [27] and [28].) It is therefore not merely a fantasy, but just as valid a representation as a portrait of any historical figure not drawn from life. FWIW, the original illustration from which the Commons version was derived, contains this caption: "Imagen construida de Samuel Fritz en base de las descripciones de sus rasgos físicos hechos por los misionarios jesuitas que trabajaron con él." (Image constructed of Samuel Fritz based on descriptions of his physical features made by those Jesuit missionaries who worked with him.) So, not a "fantasy." Cmacauley (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I would say the image is fine, but it should be tagged as an "artists interpretation based upon descriptions of contemporaries" or similar to make it clear that it's only a theoretical. This is no different to presenting a statue, or other graphical depiction of many pre-photographi c historical figures. Koncorde (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, @Cmacauley, at last you have delivered at least something. I myself also found the bookpage with the image in the 2nd. edition of the author's book published in 2015, page 21. I have added the source to the file description on Commons. Of course, I agree with @Koncorde: If the image is used, it should be described in the same way as in the book (as a reconstructed modern portrait). On the other hand, we still have the problem of copyright and license. There is no date given, the artist's signature says "o5", which I guess can be for the year 2005. The original description said "before 1935", so perhaps it is not "o5" but "35"? Also, it is not very clear who the artist is. Is the "López" who made the drawing the same Aristóteles Álvarez López who published the book? Or is it his mother (the signature looks like "Eva López")? And when did she draw it? Of course, the image is not in the public domain as originally stated.--Jordi (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
N.B.: Now, I have identified the artist, it is indeed Eva López Miranda, a photorealistic paintress who works as an aquarell painting teacher at the National School of Fine Arts of Lima, Peru.[29][30] The signature is identical, and also her style is recognizable, especially here. I don't know when she was born, but she is obviously not so old to have done this painting "before 1935" (she was present at the exhibition in 2012, about 40 years old, and she is described as "one of the leading artists of a generation that emerged in the wake of the post terrorism years", see [31]). I think the image is from 2003 or 2005.--Jordi (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The picture is an obvious copyright violation, so there's no way we can use it here. Also, it's utterly without encyclopedic information value. See WP:PORTRAIT – though that's just my personal opinion on this type of issue. This is the textbook case of an image we should not use, even if we could (and we can't). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)[edit]

Is the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) a reliable source for determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations? — Newslinger talk 14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The IFCN's website (ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org) includes a list of signatories that have been certified by the IFCN. — Newslinger talk 14:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Survey (IFCN)[edit]

  • Yes. The IFCN evaluates sources for compliance with a code of principles (summarized here) that are in line with what is expected from reliable sources. The assessments (example: Snopes in 2018) are in-depth, and include examinations of the fact-checker's article quality, methodology, funding, staff, commitment to nonpartisanship, and track record of performing error corrections. Although the Poynter Institute has never been discussed in detail on this noticeboard, past discussions indicate that the Poynter Institute is not questioned as a reliable source when it is mentioned, similiarly to the Columbia Journalism Review. — Newslinger talk 14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Some of the financial backers[2] are neutral but some appears to be for-profit and political influencers and have controversial backgrounds.
Here's what I have found. Poynter (IFCN) have had received major funding from some controversial entities as follows.
  • Facebook is a highly controversial entity that is alleged of stealing and selling the private user data to advertisement agencies and political parties and have also tried to influence the political views of users.[3]
  • Open_Society_Foundations whose founder and chairman is George Soros, who according to the his Wikipedia page is "a well-known supporter of progressive and liberal political causes" and a controversial figure.
  • Charles Koch Foundation is another controversial entity backing IFCN. According to Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers, the Koch brothers have made significant financial contributions to libertarian and conservative think tanks and have donated primarily to Republican Party candidates running for office.
  • Google News Initiative is an entity created by a for-profit and controversial company, Google.[4]
  • Open Society Foundations, Omidyar Network | Luminate Omidyar, Tides Foundation are funds managed by tycoon Luminate Omidyar who is alleged of having given large sums of money to causes that are active in left-wing politics[5]
Looking at the past backgrounds of these investors/backers, the neutrality of the IFCN is in question since it is an entity that accredit news portals as verified news fact-checkers globally via some middlemen (who again are politically influenced by some means). This is a serious issue and some of the accredited fact-checkers in question (whose founders/associates are actually involved in publicly bashing out other-side political leaders or ideologically/religiously different groups of people) are involved in publishing targetted and one-side political write ups. Ironically, IFCN is also involved in rejecting requests from the sources which are politically/ideologically have different views than its existing verified fact-checker signatories. Because Wikipedia treats IFCN and its verified signatories as reliable sources, this is a serious threat which is deliberately being used as a powerful weapon whoever talks against them even with the valid evidences. Also, whatever is being published or circulated by such IFCN verified signatory fact-checker websites is considered as a final truth which is a dangerous thing, in my opinion. I would like to propose that IFCN (and its verified fact-checker signatories) should not be treated as reliable sources of the news. If this is not possible, then at least allow other news websites to be considered equally reliable which have been targettedly called as black-listed by these IFCN verified fact-checker websites. This decision can ensure that there is no monopoly of IFCN on judging the fact-checkers as it posses the power of being one today since Wikipedia (editors) trust all those IFCN-verified fact-checkers and doesn't trust at all those who are rejected or have been bashed out targettedly by the IFCN-verified ones. Vishal Telangre (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/community-guidelines/
  2. ^ https://www.poynter.org/major-funders/
  3. ^ Criticism_of_Facebook
  4. ^ Criticism_of_Google
  5. ^ https://www.influencewatch.org/person/pierre-omidyar/
The Poynter Institute lists 22 major funders. The widely discredited George Soros conspiracy theory, which is often described as antisemitic, has no bearing on the reliability of the Poynter Institute or the IFCN. Additionally, you've listed funding from both liberal (e.g. George Soros) and conservative (e.g. Charles Koch) entities, showing support across the political spectrum. For-profit companies donate to nonprofit organizations all the time, and a nonprofit organization does not become a less reliable source by accepting funds from a for-profit company, especially when a vast number of commercial publications run by for-profit companies qualify under the reliable sources guideline. It is true that OpIndia has been rejected by the IFCN, and considering OpIndia's propensity to publish false or misleading information, the rejection is a positive indicator of the IFCN's reliability. — Newslinger talk 18:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Rejecting an applicant doesn't make IFCN reliable rather it make it more questionable. The IFCN's credibility becomes untrustworthy when the its verified signatories have one-sided idelogical views rather than fact-based neutral views. An example is AltNews who is owned by by Pratik Sinha who has anti-Modi, anti-BJP, anti-Hindutva and anti-right-wing, pro-leftist views[1] and is a member of a political organisation (mentioned in his Twitter bio) that is involved in targetted bashing of current prime minister of India and is inclined towards left-wing political parties and individuals. Just makes all connections fishy. This is one of the examples of the specific-agenda views of the entities associated/verified by IFCN. Vishal Telangre (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ www.truthofgujarat.com redirects to altnews.com
So they're biased because they're funded by non-profits, and businesses, and progressives, and conservatives, and libertarians I guess. That's certainly a unique analysis. GMGtalk 19:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Your false allegation that Pratik Sinha is "anti-Hindu" is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy unless you can back that up with a reliable source. OpIndia, a site that is essentially the Indian version of The Gateway Pundit (RSP entry) (which was deprecated in a 2019 RfC), is not reliable and the IFCN is correct to reject it. — Newslinger talk 06:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No false allegations. I have attached reference to the website (it redirects to altnews.com now) run by the same man which had published articles expressing similar views. Vishal Telangre (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The false "anti-Hindu" allegation is not the same thing as the term anti-Hindutva. — Newslinger talk 09:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Seems like you missed my edits. Vishal Telangre (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I see that you've changed "anti-Hindu" to "anti-Hindutva" in Special:Diff/945975817. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 09:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Vishaltelangre, That's... novel. In the real world, a body that never rejects any applicant is not thought to be terribly discerning. As to Sinha, I don't know if you've realised it, but critical analysis of the government of the day is a core function of journalism. Failure to do that is one reason why Fox News is not reliable. Guy (help!) 08:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding Pratik Sinha, as cited above, he do not have neutral idelogical and political views. He rather have published articles only targetting a specific person (to be specific, India's current PM, Narendra Modi), related ideology and that person's political party. That makes him and his organization (AltNews) an unreliable source since the published articles show the similar views. If someone is a hater of a specific ideology then how can his organization be trusted as a reliable source which published most news stories that majorly targets a specific community? Vishal Telangre (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
You have not established that Alt News is biased, especially considering that Alt News was found to be compliant with the IFCN's nonpartisanship policy when it was accredited in 2019. Wikipedia articles are generally allowed to use biased or opinionated sources, but generally not allowed to use questionable sources. OpIndia is a questionable source because it regularly publishes false and misleading information, not because it is a far-right pro-Hindutva publication. — Newslinger talk 09:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Vishaltelangre, he doesn't have to have unbiased views. Alan Rusbridger is not a fan of the Tory Party, but he ran a highly respected newspaper that comments with some authority on what the Tory government does. Guy (help!) 20:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. IFCN is an authority widely used and cited by other reliable sources. Reuters, CJR and others cover it as a positive contribution to factual reporting. It's not for us to second-guess those sources, especially when the motivation is that we like a source it says is unreliable. Guy (help!) 08:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes as it is considered reliable by sources such as Reuters, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (IFCN)[edit]

WikiLeaks cable[edit]

Is it just me, or is {{WikiLeaks cable}} a prime example of making it easier for people to do something they should not be doing? It seems to me that linking to the leaked US cables on Wikileaks is a bad idea on several levels, and providing a template so this continues to work as WikiLeaks male changes also looks ill-advised. I would have thought that, per Wikipedia policy, if we're discussing any event in the leaked cables we should be doing so via reliable independent secondary sources, not directly from WikiLeaks, because the secondary source may be expected to have authenticated or contextualised the content, where WikiLeaks does not. Guy (help!) 07:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with it. Wikileaks has a robust process for authenticating documents prior to publication. As far as I know no one has ever claimed any of the documents it has published was fake. It is therefore a reliable source for original documents. I would regard Wikileaks as close to a primary source for documents which means that generally we would prefer to use analysis of the documents from another source. However, there will be occasions when we want to link to the primary document and this template is useful for that. Burrobert (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
WikiLeaks has on numerous occasions leaked documents that are incomplete and thus lack context. Further, WikiLeaks intentionally misrepresents the documents that they are leaking, providing completely false explanations of what a particular document is saying. Thankfully, reliable sources have started to treat WikiLeaks more carefully than they did in the past due to this history of intentional deception, which is perhaps why fringey Wikipedia editors now increasingly seek to insert primary source WikiLeaks content into Wikipedia articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
And, just as relevant, the material that ends up with Wikileaks is itself selective. It's an axe-grinder's dream. Guy (help!) 20:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what it is used for, but if its BLP's that would be an issue, as would the use of illegally acquired material.
As to rumours of faking stuff [[32]], its just has not got that much coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes there have been general claims that Wikileaks has published fake documents. It is clear why this claim may suit some people or organisations. I haven't seen a case where a specific fake document was identified. There are two parts of the linked article that mention fake documents on Wikileaks. The first mention relates to "speculation" but no fake document was identified in the article.

When the site's first leak, a secret Islamic order allegedly written by Sheikh Hassan Aweys, one of the leaders of the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia, went live in December 2006, there was speculation that it was fake; Wikileaks' credibility was questioned in the press.

The second mention relates to an anonymous informer who again does not identify a specific fake document.

There is fake content on Wikileaks. A whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted to submitting fabricated documents to Wikileaks to see what it would do. The documents were flagged as potential fakes, but the whistleblower felt that the decision to publish the documents had "an impact on their credibility".

The article does describe the efforts that Wikileaks makes to ensure the authenticity of documents it publishes.
Burrobert (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Burrobert, with fewer than 1500 edits, an average of one every other day since you registered, I don't think you have sufficient experience to comment meaningfully. Guy (help!) 20:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
A WikiLeaks cable is not a RS and shouldn't be used as a source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 data compiled by BNO News[edit]

  • The link[1] to latest data about positive cases, dealths etc. caused due to COVID-19 published by BNO News is being circulated by many people everywhere. Can it be considered a reliable source?

References

  1. ^ https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/
  • Yes. The information and the data looks probably correct to me. Also, the data represented for every country is being retrieved from the official governement websites of the respective countries and have specified links to those websites. I am not so sure about the day-wise timeline of the incidents but seems that it is also derived from the linked official government sources for respective countries. The data representation is easier to understand the overall impact of the spread of the novel coronavirus 2019 globally. Vishal Telangre (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    No. The company does not provide information about its editorial board and most articles are not bylined and/or transparently derivative is this a copyright violation? For disease information especially, it is important to use a reliable source. buidhe 19:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

YouTube video and COVID-19[edit]

Requesting comment (or editing) on whether a YouTube video is a reliable source as claimed here for what appears to be an unverified (or bogus) COVID-19 cure at Deschampsia cespitosa and Calamagrostis epigejos. Thanks. Doremo (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Assuming its a verified account it is reliable for the claim "this TV station has claimed...", and that is about it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks; another editor has resolved it per WP:MEDRS. Doremo (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of U.S. Board on Geographic Names[edit]

This AfD calls into question the reliability of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (GNIS), part of the U.S. Department of the Interior. At Parks Place, Mississippi, the text "Parks Place is a ghost town in Issaquena County, Mississippi, United States" is supported by this source. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It is my understanding that such sources are RS for both a place being real and notability.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
A comment at the AFD has pointed out they do not only include town names, this makes it harder. Based on that I am changing to not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington, wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road Junction Windmill, Arizona, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn Ridge, Arizona, wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Place, Arizona, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrowhead Junction, California, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cream Can Junction, Idaho, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle Point, Indiana, wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Joseph Youth Camp, Arizona, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natures Bathing Pool, Kentucky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willy Dick Crossing, Washington etc. etc. etc. all over the country. Besides GNIS's unreliability in its place classifications (and that it's no longer updated since 2014), you cannot jump from "Class: Populated place" to "community" or "(historical)" to "ghost town", and you cannot assume anything in it is automatically notable merely for being listed in the database. GNIS can be useful for matching names (and alternate names) to coordinates and the elevation there, with a primary source to their own data references like topo maps, but it should not be used as a basis for an article. WP:Significant coverage is.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=946168753"