Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296

< Wikipedia:Reliable sources | Noticeboard
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Barkeep49 in topic RfC: PanAm Post
Archive 290←Archive 294Archive 295Archive 296Archive 297Archive 298→Archive 300

Plainsite.org on Tesla, Inc. and Elon Musk

Latest comment: 4 years ago29 comments5 people in discussion

In relation to Tesla, plainsite.org is currently cited in a couple of places. Yesterday I removed a third plainsite.org citation related to Tesla. I did so for two reasons. Firstly, a few days ago the person behind plainsite.org filed a lawsuit against Tesla. Secondly, in the filings of that lawsuit they divulge their personal, financial investments against Tesla. (Investing against a company means short selling of that company's stock or as in this case, the purchase (from an entity unrelated to the company) of put options that will pay out handsomely if the company goes bankrupt.) Per their filing, the plainsite.org owner has made an investment that will as a maximum pay out $200,000 if Tesla goes bankrupt (or the stock becomes essentially worthless) by June 19 of this year. Among the investments listed in their filing is an investment against Tesla on March 8, 2019, so on that date they created a personal, financial interest against Tesla. On the Tesla article, I removed the reference to plainsite.org (and the content that it alone supported) because I consider it self-evident that we cannot cite material from a website operated by a person who has started a legal conflict with Tesla and who is actively investing against the company. In addition to Tesla, the lawsuit list as defendants also Elon Musk, a company Smick Enterprises Inc. as well as an apparently non-notable, named individual. As such I think a general decision on the scope of plainsite.org citations is necessary. For this discussion I am paging QRep2020, an anti-Tesla-focused SPA who happens to have introduced all three references to plainsite.org. Lklundin (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

How is this user QRep2020 not a COI account? Seems to have flown under the radar despite already being blocked. A true advocacy/COI SPA. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I included Plainsite.org because I could not find any other website on the Internet that is keeping an living count of lawsuits where Tesla is a party. I frankly agree Plainsite is a bit too involved - though Aaron Greenspan has denied being a part of TSLAQ - but until there's another website that is providing that sort of detailed important information, I thought the point was important enough to surface. Feel free to prove me wrong as I didn't spend hours researching. QRep2020 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
As if short-sellers are known for their reliability and honesty. -- GreenC 19:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence that this has been true on a large scale? Conversely, why would I trust someone promoting a stock? Don't they have the same COI as a short seller? Springee (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Nobody involved in short selling, holding or promoting a stock should be editing the relevant article directly in my opinion. Isn't that textbook COI? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • How is any of this relevant to the current discussion? What reason do we have to believe someone from Plainsite is editing entries on Wikipedia? QRep2020 (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
First, my comment was directed at the claim that short sellers in general are unreliable or dishonest. I didn't take that comment to be Wikipedia specific and my answer certainly wasn't meant to be. As for Wikipedia specifically, are you suggesting one of the editors here has a COI or just that Plainsite has the COI? What level of fiscal involvement becomes a COI issue? If I own 100 shares of Grumman should I be barred from editing the Grumman article? Springee (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, my understanding is that you should not be editing Grumman. I'm a little surprised you need to ask this but maybe there is something I am woefully misunderstanding about WP:COI? —DIYeditor (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
How did you derive that from WP:COI?
Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse. There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject.
On one hand I could take it to mean Democrats are not allowed to write about Republicans as they have an interest in making Republicans look bad. Republicans are not allowed to write about Republicans as they have an interest in making Republicans look good. So only independents can write about Republicans? That might fall into the common sense end of things. Back to Grumman, if I were a major shareholder then I would have a clear COI. As a minor shareholder of a major (and technically no longer existing) company how much impact could my edits have on the stock price? I mean if everything I write is from RS and has WEIGHT then how could it be the sort of cutting edge news that would move the markets? WP:COI gives examples of company owners but not typical shareholders. I would agree that Greenspan from Plainsite would have a COI with regards to Tesla based on disclosed investments but I don't believe Greenspan in an involved editor here. Absent insider knowledge how could I with some tiny fraction of Grumman shares impact the stock price by editing the Grumman article? Springee (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to assume you are trolling or something. Despite being linked to the correct spelling of Grumman you are still typing Grumann and as you say it doesn't even exist anymore. or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency). At this point I am extremely skeptical of your handling of any of this and I think we should look further into it to see if any funny business is going on. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I've corrected the spelling error from Grumann to Grumman. Grumman is no longer a company. It merged with Northrup. Thus there are no shares of Grumman to speak of. Springee (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. Couldn't be more clear. Please explain how this could possibly elude you? —DIYeditor (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree that owning some shares in a company makes you a "Paid Editor". That is the section you are quoting. Springee (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Despite how you may wish to interpret the section heading that introductory sentence states plainly that it is about a financial conflict of interest and what this includes. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
So then how is owning a few shares of Grumman (spelled correctly this time) a bigger COI vs editing an article about a political candidate I want to see succeed or fail? Per WP:EXTERNALREL, "How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense.". If I own one share of Grumman how much incentive do I have to try to sneak some market moving information into the article? Again, "governed by common sense". Springee (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a discussion for either WP:COI/N or Wikipedia Talk:COI. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it's a reliable repository for the relevant lawsuits. That is, if a RS mentions X vs Y lawsuit and that lawsuit is available on Plainsite then I would say we can reliability assume the copy is reliable (not a altered or doctored). Additionally if a RS links to information on Plainsite I would consider it reliable for inclusion here (assuming WEIGHT). Essentially we should treat Plainsite as we would the content of a personal blog.
Lklundin, DIYeditor, it is not appropriate to start this off with a discrediting statement about QRep2020. Certainly there is no evidence they have a COI with Tesla. As for disliking Tesla, well that is clear but how many editors here dislike the left or right yet are actively editing those topics. If there is evidence they are editing problematically then take it to ANI. It should not be a topic here. Springee (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I reject the claim that QRep2020 is being inappropriately discredited here. The editor should be informed when edits that they (alone) have made are being discussed here. The SPA tag exists exactly to inform others about such an editor. That QRep2020 appears to edit disruptively and make advocacy out of COI is explained here. Lklundin (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Adding to my about comments about Plainsite, it has been used as a reference by news outlets. [[1]][[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]][[9]][[10]][[11]][[12]][[13]][[14]][[15]][[16]][[17]][[18]][[19]] In most of these cases Plainsite is acknowledged as a transparency site that filed for fredom of information requests or simply collected and published the relevant legal documents. In almost no cases save for a comparison of the number of active legal cases pending against various car companies, is Plainsite credited with some level of data transformation. Again, I think we can assume the information is truthful but should assume the information has zero WEIGHT. It would only be included in cases like CNBC citing Plainsite as the source for depositions etc. Springee (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if we can sidestep the issue at hand for now. I came across a "Google Dataset Search" entry for Tesla lawsuits that references Plainsite as the source. Although the information was assembled by Plainsite it looks like the entry does not list Plainsite as one of the databases. Maybe this would work instead of a link to Plainsite since Plainsite is under scrutiny. Are there any policies on Wikipedia about data sets and sources? https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/search?query=%22tesla%20lawsuits%22&docid=5q3qE%2FgkHRIQhrg7AAAAAA%3D%3D QRep2020 (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that really changes things in my view. There are two questions that we have to ask before information from Plainsite could be used in any article. The first, is if the material is reliable. In basically all cases it's reliable as evidence that "Plainsite said X". Per WP:RS it can't be treated as reliable for general statements of fact. I think it can be reliable as a source for "copy of lawsuit, deposition materials etc related to legal case X". This is how it has been cited by a number of RSs. We should not use it as a source for Plainsite generated claims including statistics (example X had 50 lawsuits in 2019). However if say NBC News says "X had 50 lawsuits in 2019 according to Plainsite" that would be considered RS since a RS is vouching for the material. All of this only addresses the reliability of the material. The other question is WEIGHT/DUE. Even if we had a letter from the all mighty saying Plainsite was 100% true there is still the question of weight. In this case we really need 3rd party RSs to cite the information to show it has weight in context of the bigger topic. I don't see that the Google search does that. Springee (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. The matter at hand really is then whether Plainsite is a reliable "repository" of lawsuits. If it is a reliable repository, then an editor can cite it in a Wikipedia article and count the amount of lawsuit references under the guidelines allowed for calculation by Wikipedia:No original research for inclusion of a statement of the references tally. Plainsite might be biased but biased sources are allowed under Wikipedia:Reliable sources and even with that it is not as if Plainsite is generating factual statements. If something as controversial and profiteering as Wikileaks is allowed to be a repository source on a Wikipedia article then Plainsite should be as well. QRep2020 (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
We might be in agreement but I'm not certain. Per OR and RS we shouldn't have a sentence claiming Tesla is involved with X no. of lawsuits because Plainsite lists X or says so. However, if a RS says in his deposition Tesla CFO said X [cite per RS that links to Plainsite] then I don't see a reason not to have both the cite to the RS as well as linking directly to the deposition. If the Wikipedia article is going to attribute the claim it should go to the RS unless they attribute the specific claim to Plainsite. So if RS says "Tesla did X per Plainsite" then it would be OK for the article to say "legal something site Plainsite said Tesla did X"[citation to RS]. Note that the details of any such edit are subject to local consensus. Springee (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we are unfortunately. How about linking to a new or updated Wikipedia list article that lists the approximately 700 lawsuits and employs an External Links section to link to the docket list on Plainsite vis-a-vis a source link in References section? I do not want to go so far as to suggest precluding any reference to Plainsite because regardless of perspective Plainsite did do work to assemble the list and I bet it is against some Wikipedia policy to "snatch and run" with the producibles of other sites' efforts. QRep2020 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This is really an article level discussion but what you need is a RS that draws attention to the number of lawsuits. If Forbes has an article that notes the number of lawsuits or compares the number of cases vs other automakers then we have some weight for article inclusion. This isn't a question of where the list comes from, rather if the information is DUE for inclusion. If Tesla had more pending lawsuits than all other car companies combined it would be a shocking fact but it wouldn't be DUE unless a RS discussed it (even that doesn't guarantee inclusion). Think of this as Wikipedia informational due process. Sometimes it seems like good information is being excluded but that's just how things work around here. We are meant to be summarizing what reliable sources say about the subject. Consider that our intended audience is a decade in the future. If the number of lawsuits is considered important it will come out. Perhaps not as soon as we would wish but it will come out. Springee (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
While it should be clear that we cannot use plainsite.org as a reference for Tesla (and Elon Musk), it is different if a RS cites plainsite in connection with one of these entities. Wikipedia has created for itself the process here for (re)evaluating whether a source is reliable. The typical, reliable news media cannot be expected to retroactively assess whether a source they cite is still reliable in their view and will typically not on their own retract a story if a source they quote turn out to be something else than it was at first. So if for example CNBC e.g. a couple of months ago cited plainsite.org in relation to Tesla (or Elon Musk), would we then cite the CNBC source with or without attribution (knowing that their source had the above mentioned problems)? Lklundin (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I would be OK citing CNBC in that case. We would have to ask, how would/could the material sourced to Plainsite be compromised by the site owner's fiscal interest? Please note that a similar fiscal interest has or currently exists with sites like Electrek and Cleantechnica other than they profit with increases in Tesla stock vs drops. Back to Plainsite, the primary thing the website offers is a publicly accessible repository of court and government documents that would otherwise be difficult/expensive to access. Do we have any evidence at all that such records are false or altered? None that has been presented. If CNBC says, "Musk said X in his SolarCity deposition according to legal records requested by Plainsite" where is the concern? I can see some concern if CNBC says Plainsite says "Tesla has 50 lawsuits pending vs 10 for GM". Still, given Plainsite's involvement with Tesla and TSLAQ I would have to assume CNBC would understand that Plainsite isn't an unbiased source yet chose to cite them anyway. So while a case could be made that a stat purely generated by Plainsite may be questionable we should still treat it as reliable if a reliable source does the same. Springee (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. If a RS cites plainsite.org on Tesla (or Elon Musk), then we should be able to use that with attribution. Lklundin (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Newslaundry on OpIndia

Latest comment: 4 years ago34 comments20 people in discussion
GENERALLY RELIABLE
There is consensus that Newslaundry is generally reliable. Some editors have expressed concerns regarding possible bias in its political narratives and reporting on rival publications; in cases where this could reasonably apply, attribution is recommended, and sufficient.
Newslaundry is reliable based on its awards, retractions, transparency and what's known of its editorial procedures/standards, in absence of any compelling case to the contrary. While it would help to have a complete picture of its editorial policies, absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.
For the specific question that was asked, attribution being present, it is acceptable on reliability grounds. On a personal note, this does not amount to a consensus to include; please consider WP:DUE (and other aspects, if any), which this noticeboard does not, and therefore, did not address. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

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)
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)

Published editorial policy

Per WP:NEWSORG news organizations do not have to have a published editorial policy. Thus, it looks like many of the above comments are irrelevant. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

True they may not publish them, it does not say they do not have to have them. Thus any argument based upon "I have no idea what their editorial policies are" are valid, they may not be strong arguments but they are still valid. Our criteria is "has a reputation for fact checking", whilst no publishing editorial policy is not an indicator they fail this, the lack of one is a good indicator they may not have such a reputation. After all if I have no idea how they decide what to publish I cannot know it is fact checked.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Burden of proof for disputed

Latest comment: 4 years ago34 comments16 people in discussion
No action taken. Based on existing policies and guidelines, there is general agreement that in most cases the WP:ONUS falls on those seeking to include content. However, as several editors have pointed out the scope of the question posed is unclear, so this RfC does not support any change to any policy or guideline. If the participants would like to discuss specific issues such as WP:SPS in more detail, then they should hold a discussion focusing on that topic. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Where a source has been appropriately tagged in good faith as disputed, e.g. using {{sps}}, {{dubious}}, {{better}}, on whom does the onus fall? Guy (help!) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  1. On those seeking to include the source, to show that it is reliable as used, per WP:ONUS;
  2. On those seeking to remove the source, to show it is unreliable, per WP:PRESERVE.

Opinions (burden of proof)

Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research.

The words "would belong" link to WP:ONUS, and WP:ONUS is part of the verifiability policy. WP:ONUS takes precedence over WP:PRESERVE regardless of cleanup tags, so the cleanup tags aren't really relevant here. — Newslinger talk 13:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 3. Neither, because this is a false dilemma that attempts to misrepresent/strawman the actual issue, as several editors have raised in the discussion section. No one is arguing with JzG about the purported subject of this RfC. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It depends, as we have had cases of editors in the past that have mass-tagged with these types of labels which have been shown where the tagging is wrong. Where there is consensus that the tag applies, then the onus does fall on those that which to retain the source and/or information to ultimately deal with it, though the process of how that happens depends on numerous factors. So it's not a simply-answered question here. --Masem (t) 13:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 - this is a rather straightforward application of existing policy, as Newslinger points out. A converse rule also faces the problem of proving a negative. Neutralitytalk 15:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 - WP:BURDEN is policy, the countervailing claims aren't. This is straightforward application of fundamental Wikipedia editing policy. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to do the reading - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 1: I just took the time to carefully read all of the linked policy/guideline pages (always a good thing to do when one is already pretty sure what they say) and choice 1 is indeed a a rather straightforward application of existing policy. Plus, the person posting it is named "Guy" which I am sure everyone will agree[Citation Needed] is always a big plus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 per Newslinger and others, and per WP:BURDEN and WP:DON'T PRESERVE. Also, it's better for Wikipedia to not say a thing than to say a false thing, which is why we insist on reliable sources. Crossroads -talk- 05:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 1: WP:ONUS's statement that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content is a clear unqualified statement.
    On the other hand, WP:PRESERVE's statement is qualified by if they meet the three article content retention policies, which is predicated on demonstrating that the material indeed completely satisfies WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Whether a claim that the material satisfies those policies is assessed, naturally, by consensus. Once consensus determines that these are satisfied, then the content should be preserved. — MarkH21talk 05:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 1, unless the source appears in green on the list of perennial sources. If there is already consensus about the source’s reliability then all that editor needs to do is note that consensus (perhaps in the edit summary of a revert) and the onus transfers to the challenger. I’ve seen instances in which the reliability of a source like the NYT or Telegraph is questioned on the talk page and the challenger actually expects to be taken seriously, there is a limit to onus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not a valid question as posed, are we talking about new or long standing content? Is the tag in dispute? I agree with The Drover's Wife that this isn't a valid A/B question and with Masem's thinking. Certainly if something fails V then it can be removed. However, if a difference citation that passes V is found then we should treat that content the same way we would any other reliably sourced material (sink or swim based on WEIGHT, CONSENSUS etc) and if it was long standing content it should be assumed to have consensus for inclusion. What if the tag is in dispute? If there is no consensus on the validity of the tag then I think we follow the same rules as consensus, that is lack of consensus means keep as is. Else editors could game the system by tagging the sources that support content they don't like as suspect and use that as reason to remove long standing text. So while #1 is the correct answer in many cases it is not the correct answer in all cases. Springee (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (burden of proof)

This is one of two interlinked issues above - they need to be picked apart. This is my attempt to distil the central point The Drover's Wife is making, which seems to me to be a valid question. Guy (help!) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not, in any way, the point I was making. You've got a bad habit of deliberately misrepresenting the explicit points your critics make so you can shoot down your own straw-Wikipedian. As I said below: this is a false dilemma, because sources being tagged as self-published does not mean they're being tagged as "disputed", they're being tagged as self-published, and we have specific guidance as to what to do in those situations in WP:SPS. If you don't want to follow Wikipedia guidelines regarding self-published sources, you need to propose an RfC to change those - not to engage in this bizarre attempt at wordplay circumvention where you claim all self-published sources are "disputed", therefore allowing you to ignore existing guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


False dilemma? If the problem is serious enough, the whole text being referenced should be removed, not just the source. --MarioGom (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a false dilemma for a different reason - the addition of a tag to an article does not necessarily imply a substantive dispute about the article's content. Quite a bit of tag-bombing is gratuitous IMO and represents one editor's ideosyncratic opinion rather than an actual dispute. So I would say that content isn't "disputed" unless there is a Talk page discussion underway, in which case BRD, BLPDELETERESTORE and ONUS would be among the competing principles at play. Newimpartial (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

False dilemma, as for the others. A source being tagged as self-published means that it has been tagged as self-published, not that it has been tagged as "disputed" or "unreliable", and so Wikipedia has always provided the guidance in WP:SPS as to what to do in those situations. JzG evidently disagrees with WP:SPS, so he's been trying to turn this into a burden of proof issue to allow him to sidestep that guidance. He doesn't have to show that it's unreliable, he just has to follow Wikipedia's existing guidelines regarding what self-published sources are appropriate and when even if he doesn't want to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not rehash this again in a new thread?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with closing this WP:POINT nonsense and sparing the rehash, yes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
At this point you are involved, and that we not be appropriate.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I said I was good with closing it, not that I would do it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't know the context this arose from (update: what I get for looking at most recent first -- reading through the other discussion now; in any case, it doesn't affect what I write here), but my thoughts are similar to Newimpartial's here. It's unclear what the implications of this RfC would be. Is a tag considered valid by default? Is the burden on the tagger to present an argument first? Is this about tagging, removal of tags, removal of sources, removal of sourced content, etc.? Why is this based on tagging at all? What difference does that make to a challenged source? Ultimately, WP:PRESERVE is a good idea to keep in mind, but doesn't trump WP:ONUS/WP:BURDEN when material/sources are challenged, but I don't think there's any neat way to frame that in an RfC given the amount of gray area there is. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this might be better if rather than this we had a discussion (maybe at village pump) about having a clearer definition of when to use SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I am OK with that as well. But there are different kinds of SPS. Blogs, vanity presses and predatory journals are all kinds of SPS. Guy (help!) 15:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
True, but the issue is not "is it an SPS" but "can we uses this SPS". So either the tag "SPS" must mean its a dodgy SPS or it just means its an SPS. What we need is clarity on what the tag is for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF between them cover just about any situation in which I'd think it logical to use an SPS, and both of them are plenty specific - I'm not convinced that we'd be even having this discussion if JzG (and anyone else in that boat) just read the damn policies and acknowledged that they understand that they exist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
just read the damn policies Your assertion that he literally hasn't is frankly bizarre - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
David Gerard, well, to be fair, they do get edited over time, and not always by people looking to retrospectively make their edits compliant. Guy (help!) 22:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The whole crux of this dispute (at least the portion of it that I'm involved in) involves JzG removing self-published sources that are compliant with WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF. It is impossible to resolve it if neither if you will acknowledge that they exist and engage in any way with why you are not following them. There would be no point having this noticeboard at all if everyone responded in every case "I refuse to engage with the existing written consensus guidance on this source or group of source, I argue that it's unreliable anyway and demand that you prove me wrong", which is what the various responses amount to an attempt to do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The Drover's Wife, {{citation needed}} Guy (help!) 23:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no one is saying SPS can never, ever be used. Just that those who want to use it have the burden of demonstrating why it can be and getting consensus for it. Concerns over tag bombing seem irrelevant because the tag is really a side issue - SPS are SPS regardless of tagging. Just because one can tag an SPS instead of removing them does not imply that SPS should be left in place - material can be tagged as unsourced or OR as well, but the same material can also be removed per WP:BURDEN and WP:NOR. Tag vs. removal is optional based on whether you think the content may be reliably sourceable/due and that someone else may find a source. Crossroads -talk- 06:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We already have in/out policies in this area: WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, both of which are long-accepted. Refusing to acknowledge that those policies exist and claiming that there's a "burden" of convincing a random editor that they should have to follow said policy is a stance that, if adopted more broadly, would make this entire noticeboard essentially moot: why bother establishing clear guidelines on the usage of sources if they can be ignored on a whim when someone disagrees with them? The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
If a self-published source can be shown to be written by a subject-matter expert, or if the use of the self-published source can be shown to qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF, then WP:BURDEN is satisfied. — Newslinger talk 10:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ConservativeHome

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

ConservativeHome is a conservative (suprising no one) UK political website / blog founded by Tim Montgomerie and currently owned by Lord Ashcroft. It has been cited over 300 times and externally linked nearly 500 times     on Wikipedia. To me Conservative Home looks like a self-published partisan blog like Guido Fawkes or The Skwawkbox, and therefore should generally not be used as a source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Most of these links appear to be to articles about contributors saying that they contribute to the blog. That doesn't seem to be an rs problem. I don't even think it's a weight problem because people reading the biography articles may want to know where they can go to find their contributions. TFD (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't doubt that some of them are about contributors to the blog, and they are usable per WP:ABOUTSELF. But I don't see how they could constitute a majority of uses at least from a brief look at the list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Only useful for aboutself and (minimally) attributed opinion. Other uses should be axed. buidhe 23:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Opinion, attribute for anything else. In [[20] their about] they do bill themselves as a news site with an editorial team (with six staff members listed). It not run by Montgomerie anymore (he does contribute). This isn't Guido Fawkes or Skwawkbox, more akin to LabourList. This is a partisan oriented news/opinion site, and for news there are more reliable and neutral sources.--Hippeus (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The Canary also has a considerable number of staff, despite this they were judged to be generally unreliable (Not that this directly relates to CH). I think that CH is usable (minimally) for attributed opinions, but for general citations, I agree that better non partisan sources could be found. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
That's a valid comparison. Partisan opinion sites designed to preach to the faithful are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia, and shouldn't even be linked unless some reliable third party makes a case for the sigfnificance of any particular content. Guy (help!) 10:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This site is opinion, and should be used sparingly, with attribution, and not at all unless some reliable independent third party source has established the significance of any particular article. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. We should never go mining the internet for random opinions to make a point in an article. Guy (help!) 10:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Forum/many-headed blog for the Conservative Party/Tory whips' offices. Not suitable for news as such. GPinkerton (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Self source only, too partisan to be reliable for factual information, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion on the perennial sources list

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is currently a discussion about adding a notability criteria for inclusion on the perennial sources list, alongside stricter criteria for RfC's. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Is NBC a reliable sources for the Wikipedia The Epoch Times (ET) article?

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments12 people in discussion
The consensus is that yes, NBC is a generally reliable source for the Epoch Times article, meanwhile some editors feel that the CRC is unreliable. starship.paint (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

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

The Epoch Times (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am a newcomer in English Wikipedia and only discussed on the ET talk page twice. Nevertheless, I believe my question in the subject line is valid, as the ET article referenced these two NBC reports at least 10 times. Yesterday when I made the 2nd comment on ET talk page, Admin Doug Weller advised: "if you are so sure about this, take it to WP:RSN". Following this advice, I am here now.

In the two NBC reports, NBC claimed that the fund ET placed in pro-Trump ads in the last year was more than any other organization outside Trump’s re-election campaign and more than what most of the Democratic presidential candidates spent on their campaigns in the same time. This claim is quite misleading.

According to CRC's report NBC News Fails CRC Fact Check: The Epoch Times Is No Pro-Trump Dark Money Operation, “It is true that the Epoch Times reporting is generally favorable to Trump, and that they used their coverage of the administration in many of their ads to drive subscriptions. However, this is commonplace for news outlets looking to draw subscribers, and no less than The New York Times has done the same.”

WP:REPUTABLE stated “Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. “ NBC seems to be not a third-party in terms of assessing or reporting about ET, on consideration of the following two factors:

1. Being obsessed with the conspiracy theory that Trump works for Russia, in recent years NBC was caught for reporting fake news many times in this regard. Here are 2 examples: A, and B.

For over 3 years, ET has been reporting Spygate where the pro-Hillary US Intelligence Community (IC) set up traps to spy and to destroy their enemy Trump and his supporters. Many events unfolded in 2019 and 2020, such as DOJ’s IG report on FBI`s FISA abuse, the declassified FBI document showing the plot to trap General Flynn, indicate The Epoch Times’ reports on Spygate theory in the past 3 years seem to be accurate. Recently many other media echoed ET’s Spygate report. Here is one recent Yahoo news

Reporting facts is a media’s duty, which should not be classified as being pro-Trump. NBC and ET have been reporting two competing theories and therefore being competitors to each other. It seems that by associating ET’s Facebook ad for increasing subscription with Trump’s re-election campaign, these NBC reports made use of the anti-Trump sentiment to NBC advantage for beating down NBC’s competitor ET.

2. Both media’s relationship with the Chinese Communist Party is opposite NBC Universe has a joint venture in Beijing with CCP, while ET early journalists in China were persecuted by CCP and last year CCP riots in Hong Kong tried to burn down ET’s printing house NBC’s economic ties with CCP made its reports on ET appear not following COI.

On consideration of above factors, I believe NBC can hardly be counted as a third party on the subject of ET and to cite NBC for introducing ET could be against WP:COI and WP:REPUTABLE, so I am raising the question for your review. Scarlett 04:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • NBC is a reliable source, while the Epoch Times is a propaganda mouthpiece for far-right interests, from Donald Trump to Covid disinformation campaigns to Falun Gong advocating. Zaathras (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • NBC News is a source of the highest quality, and I've never heard any general criticism over its fact checking or journalistic integrity. I would count it as the highest level of reliability among news sources. --Jayron32 15:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • As other editors highlight above, NBC News is generally considered a high-quality source. The CNC (Capital Research Center), on the other hand, which has produced movies like No Safe Spaces under its movie production extension "Dangerous Documentaries", is a right-wing political organization. Its defense of Falun Gong propaganda arms is not a huge surprise. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • NBC is a highly reliable source, Capital Research Center (CRC) is a highly unreliable source. Any time you have to use a highly unreliable against a highly reliable source you should probably just walk away. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • NBC is indeed a reliable news source, while the Epoch Times is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • NBC is one of very few sources that we can pretty much make a blanket determination of its reliability. Capital Research, however, is laughably unreliable and far right garbage. The opinion of CR would be like considering the opinion of Redditors at r/conspiracy on The New York Times to be valuable or legitimate. Praxidicae (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • NBC and ET aren't publishing two competing theories. NBC is reporting the truth, while ET is off the rails on their pro-Trump conspiracy theories. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The WP:COI guidelines being cited are not guidelines for sources to include or exclude; they are guidelines for which editors should or should not be editing given articles. The topic starter here may wish to read it, for instances where it may be of relevance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • NBC News is a high-quality, reputable source. EP or CRC are the opposite. "Spygate" is fringe conspiracy crap. Neutralitytalk 13:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whitelist for batakindonews.blogspot.com

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Can an admin/bureaucrat put this site: batakindonews.blogspot.com into some kind of whitelist for websites? This website is controlled by a guy who can't buy real website, but his news is filled with first-hand interview with the corresponding subject.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOGS, very unlikely, and that goes even more if you want to use it in WP:BLPs. Do you argue that the blogger is an "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[8]"? Seems to me that you have to find other sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Nope. Won't use it for BLPs. Besides, the real difference between a blogspot and a news website is that someone has to pay for it, which kinda states that a reliable sources requires someone investing money in it. There were no assesment that says that this website was written by an expert, but most of it was written by first hand interviews. I think WP:NEWSBLOG is more proper.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
No, the difference between a blogspot and a news website is not "that someone has to pay for it", but rather that news websites have fact checking and editorial oversight, among other things. If you are saying this is a WP:NEWSBLOG, what news organization is it the blog for? Because NEWSBLOG refers exclusively to blogs that are maintained and hosted by actual news organizations, not simply blogs that say they are news. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@AmbivalentUnequivocality: Sorry....but the main (and only author) of the blog is a reporter named Leonardo TSS (Leonardo Tolstoy Simajuntak), is a reporter from the KabarIndonesia online newspaper, based in the Netherlands. Here is the accreditation certificate. His blogspot may be an extension of the KabarIndonesia newspaper, but I'm just assuming here.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
KabarIndonesia is maintained by the Yayasan Peduli Indonesia, and is listed as a stichting in the Netherlands [21]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromi Mikhael (talk • contribs) 07:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Just thinking here. How does an "interview" could be fact checked? For example, this article only contains the indirect speech version of the interview. No personal opinion, etc, were added. Sorry if I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromi Mikhael (talk • contribs) 07:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

WhatCulture

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments9 people in discussion

WhatCulture, the website where contributors "do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications", probably deserves an edit filter. Last month, I took the issue to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist because its use on Wikipedia is being a problem. It is generally specifically used for lists, celebrities, films, video games, and especially wrestling, and one can obviously tell the format of the coverage just by looking at its homepage. Frankly my blacklist suggestion was declined due to the lack of actual spam (the raison d'être of the blacklist), and during that time I came to better understand the use of edit filters. I then realized that I could either take the issue here on RSN or on WP:EFN, in which case the former is obviously correct. Normally, I do not request for putting warnings on links that should be avoided, but when those links become widely used, they become more or less an epidemic that needs to be curbed. I am not sure what I would be using that website for, if anything, so it would help if anyone can tell me why the source is at least useful. FreeMediaKid! 21:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Not reliable and would love to see it blacklisted. I'd put in the pile of "humor-based publications" like Mad and Cracked that are meant to be fun to read but have zero journalistic merit and should not be used for any real claims. --Masem (t) 21:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable Top 10 clickbait garbage absolutely a terrible source. Watchmojo should also be added the list for the same reason, it is currently used in 30 articles     Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable The pro wrestling project included WhatCulture as a unreliable source. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable - the pro wrestling wikiproject has had this on its list of unreliable sources for some time, it is unreliable for any claim.LM2000 (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable Some of their lists are fun but not appropriate as a source. The only exception I could see would be if they interviewed any notable wrestlers/media personality, in which case it may be usable as a primary source regarding the interviewee.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable I've removed references citing them previously so it's kind of nice to see it being discussed here. The reason being that a lot of it is second-hand or pure speculation, not to mention they recently put out a fake news article saying that Karl Anderson had signed with AEW. The fact one of their presenters is considered a valid source on 2019 Superstar Shake-up is baffling to me. Solitude6nv5 (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The way I see it, it's a bit like imdb, anyone can register and provide content. It does have some editorial work, but I've never liked the website, too heavy on adverts, with advert chains to fake news websites. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree, LM2000, Solitude6nv5, and Govvy: - could you state whether you would want this source blacklisted? starship.paint (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on wording in Wikipedia:Deprecated sources

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a request for comment on the first sentence of Wikipedia:Deprecated sources § Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. If you are interested, please participate at WT:DEPS § RfC: Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. — Newslinger talk 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Using for Forbes.com for Kanye West's networth

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Using for Forbes.com for Kanye West's networth. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

see WP:FORBES. Staff written articles are fine. CONTRIBUTOR articles are seldom considered reliable and treated similarly to other self published sources. Graywalls (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls, it would be best to comment on this at the WP:BLP noticeboard, where it's clear that I'm aware of WP:FORBES. My concerns are what I stated there, and that includes my comment there on an edit you made. As seen there, other have also expressed concerns. This section here was simply meant to be an alert to the centralized discussion; I was employing WP:TALKCENT. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Can YouTube video (having more than 100K views) be used as references for notability

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments10 people in discussion

I want to know that if a view having more than 100K views (example for a song). Can anyone use it as reference to that song in that singer's biography Discography section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChunky (talk • contribs)

No, youtube numbers cited to youtube doesn't mean anything, WP:N-wise. If Rolling Stone writes an article about the song, then it may be notable, and if that article bothers to mention the number of views on YT, it's fair to mention it in a potential WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Notability and popularity are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
No, as discussed. Also consider looking at Arguments to avoid: Google Test for a similar discussion on google hits. Jlevi (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
This howling dog video has 401,012 views, is the dog notable? Seriously, no, YouTube numbers are not the kind of sources Wikipedia uses. However, a video with 100k or a few million views could mean sources are out there.--Eostrix (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
and to add, 100,000 is not even top 500.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
it's actually worse than the Google Test. Take a look at [ https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buy+youtube+views ]. You can buy fake YouTube views for $1 to $2 for a thousand views. Or you can accomplish the same thing without cheating by buying YouTube ads that lead to your videos. GEICO, TurboTax, Grammarly, and Wayfair have all received millions of legitimate views because they ran ads on other, more popular YouTube videos. The cost for this is roughly $200 per thousand views, so this method is pretty much used only when a reasonable percentage of those views turn into paying customers.
Other online venues where there exists a thriving market for fake views/subscribers/likes/followers/positive reviews/etc., are Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit. See [ https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buy+reddit+upvotes ] and [ https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buy+facebook+likes ] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I am stating my opinion but not the current practice: If it is from an official account (with Youtube Verification in some form), I think it is acceptable. Universehk (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally no. YouTube is a video hosting platform, and does not make the publisher any more or less reliable than if it had uploaded the video on its own website. If the YouTube channel is verified in some way to a source that would otherwise be considered reliable, then the video would be reliable and count toward notability regardless of the number of views (subject to the other conditions in the general notability guideline). If the YouTube channel is verified to a self-published source, then the video would still be considered unreliable and not count toward notability. Most YouTube videos fall in the latter category. — Newslinger talk 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the principle of WP:GHITS should come in here. In layman's terms: No, they should not because as people said above, number of views is completely meaningless. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope as per everyone above, Also if the video is deleted the article is stuffed ... whereas if it's a news article then it wouldn't matter if the link died as we have Wayback Machine. IMHO Youtube should be avoided at all costs when it comes ro sourcing. –Davey2010Talk 11:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • What Gråbergs Gråa Sång said. If an article in a WP:RS finds the number of YouTube views of a video notable enough for a mention, that article can be cited in Wikipedia for a mention of the video's YouTube views. Otherwise, no, don't cite the YouTube video itself unless the use complies with WP:ABOUTSELF. feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 02:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

What if secondary sources conflict with and apparently misinterpret a primary source?

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Death of George Floyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If a movie or book is a reliable source for a plot description, isn't a video also a reliable source? If this source clearly conflicts with what a few secondary sources are saying, what should we do? I have left a "dubious" tag because of this. I apologize for the video I link containing some extraneous commentary at beginning and end but it is the best and only complete copy of the video I have found. I link to the exact timestamps that are relevant here.

Primary source:

  1. Video on YouTube (5m36s) African-American man walks up and starts commenting.
  2. Video on YouTube (6m05s) What sounds like the same man tells him to get up and get in the car, that he can't win. Is plainly not the Asian officer standing there whose voice can be heard in the video. There is no way you could interpret this to be one of the cops if you listen to all he says.

Secondary sources:

  1. Agence France Presse: the officers taunted him to "get up and get in the car."
  2. CBS News: An officer keeps insisting he get in the car
  3. WVLT-TV An officer can be seen insisting Floyd get in the car
  4. Buzzfeed News: A person can be heard talking to Floyd, telling him to get up and get in the car, although it is unclear if it is an officer speaking. (found and added since I posted this comment)

Agence France Press??? They transcribed an English video?

This may not seem important but this has real world implications. People may be understandably irate if they are told police were taunting the victim and telling him to get up while holding him down. This is not what happened. A bystander was telling him to give up. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Updated 06:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint has excellently found the conflicting secondary source and updated the text to reflect this conflict. This resolves the exigent issue. I still wonder what is the answer to this broader question of secondary sources conflicting with primary. My feeling is that RS experts are going to say the secondary source takes precedence but it makes me uneasy because of this case. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: - I wouldn't question Agence France Presse just because they're originally from France. They're one of the 'Big Three' news agencies. That newspapers around the world cite Agence France Presse is a testament to its credibility. starship.paint (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I would use WP:INTEXT attribution and otherwise leave it alone until/unless a new secondary source mentions an issue. AFP and CBS are reliable enough sources that you should defer to them over direct editorial interpretation of a YouTube video.
For the general question, it depends on the quality of the secondary and primary sources. — MarkH21talk 06:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Starship.paint's solution is the correct one. When a secondary source seems to conflict with a primary source, you really only have a few options. One (the ideal one) is to find more secondary sources - ideally later-published, higher-quality ones that spell out the contradiction directly and correct it, but ones that fit any of those criteria can be good ("we found twenty sources and this is the only one describing it this way" is a valid argument.) Another option is to consider whether the existing secondary source is low-quality or unreliable on the subject (obviously this is not an option when dealing with AFP, but often if a source is glaringly wrong it's a good reason to examine them more closely.) The third option is to omit saying anything at all based on limited coverage, at least until more sources appear - this is especially a good choice for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, which you might not want to cite to a single source even if it's high-quality, or for WP:BLP situations where a higher standard is required. WP:RECENTISM is often also a reasonable thing to invoke for temporary omission in situations where it seems like secondary sources are getting it wrong and you expect corrections to appear shortly; part of the reason for that policy is to resolve situations like this. What we cannot do, ever, is to use a primary source to directly correct a primary source, either explicitly ("X said Y, but they were wrong[cites to X and primary source]") or implicitly (X said Y.[cite to X] But actually, Z![cite to primary source]), since that's WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. If you can't find a secondary source correcting the one you feel is incorrect, the thing to do is argue for omission; if you can't successfully do that (because eg. multiple high-quality sources are getting it wrong and there's no corrections anywhere), sometimes you just have to accept that we're an encyclopedia and therefore have no choice but to follow what reliable sourcing says even when it leads off a cliff. --Aquillion (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    +1 to Aquillion says. -sche (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Is Janusz Korwin-Mikke a far-right politician?

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Are the following sources reliable for the claiming that Janusz Korwin-Mikke is a far-right politician?

I am aware that the first source may not be strong enough on its own, but I wonder if it will be appropriate to include also that source, provided the other two are reliable. Regards! --T*U (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems good to me.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@TU-nor and Slatersteven: - are you sure the book source states that this man is far-right? I'm not seeing the quote. What I'm seeing from the book is that another man, Pawel Kukiz, is from a far-right party. starship.paint (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The book may not the Times Of Israel does.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Here are some more https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/08/nigel-farage-ukip-europe-janusz-korwin-mikke, https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2019/1009/When-the-right-wing-is-still-too-socialist-Poland-s-far-right-unites, https://www.jpost.com/international/polish-mp-says-pogroms-were-good-for-jews-assisted-natural-selection-619640, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/tension-gay-rights-moves-fore-polish-election-191010102922825.html. Is that enough?Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
And there is https://books.google.no/books?id=CislDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=Janusz+Korwin-Mikke+far-right&source=bl&ots=T3K_OvbXhh&sig=ACfU3U3b7IaPMjuTzPZSBjuYREh9bZUhJg&hl=no&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7vYyardnpAhWQ16YKHaczAv8Q6AEwKnoECGIQAQ#v=onepage&q=Janusz%20Korwin-Mikke%20far-right&f=false, https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/03/09/far-right-polish-lawmaker-says-pogroms-were-good-for-jews-made-them-powerful/ and any number of more examples. But which are the best? --T*U (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Sputnik

Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments18 people in discussion
There is consensus for Option 4, that Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. A significant proportion of editors describe Sputnik as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government. starship.paint (talk) 08:50, 6 June 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.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Sputnik (news agency)? Sputniknews.com     has been cited over 2,000 times on Wikipedia.

Responses (Sputnik)

  • Option 4 - Sputnik is literally RT's even less reliable sibling - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Sputnik News is currently described at the RS/P as "There is clear consensus that Sputnik News is generally unreliable. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation, with some editors considering it less reliable than Breitbart News. Some editors consider Sputnik a reliable source for official Russian government statements and positions." after the result of the RT RfC, I think this is a no brainer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4: As with RT its not bias, its lies.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Pure propaganda, not reliable for Russian official statements given the purely pro-government slant. GPinkerton (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Propaganda outlet. (Hohum @) 20:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4, its RT with less of a veneer of respectability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Exists purely as a propaganda outlet, actively and intentionally publishes false and fabricated information. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Nothing but propaganda. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Let's formally deprecate and blacklist. This is a clear state-sponsored propaganda outlet with some straight-up dezinformatsiya mixed in. Neutralitytalk 01:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4, a propaganda arm of the Russian government which fabricates stories to further the interests of the Russian administration, certainly not reliable as a source for factual information. Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3.999, unreliable for everything, with the exception of statements by the Russian government.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 with exception for official Russian govt position. buidhe 23:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Canonically unreliable. Guy (help!) 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4: most fact checkers have a piece or two on false reporting published by Sputnik [28].--ReyHahn (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1: depends on context - *factual* content seems OK for non-political content seems OK, though political content obviously has a poor rep among WP editors. But looking at the actual list of cites shows good factual content contributions of Russian information for ISS, Vietnam, etcetera that seems among BESTSOURCES for such, and content for Chuck Norris, Covid, Gagarin etcetera that seems valid. Looking at site, the tabs for Business and Tech are likely more factual. The tab for World news seems partly OK - though feels to me a bit much Trump bashing, not the only RS with that flaw, and in covering sections of the world outside the UK or US this would seem a prominent source. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    Markbassett, the entire point of dezinformatsiya is that it should look legitimate. Sources on propaganda note that you have to include a significant majority of factual content in order that your payload of disinformation is not immediately obvious. That's why sites like this are dangerous: you can't tell without checking, every single time, whether the content is disinformation or not. Since we're not supposed to be experts, and we cannot actually trust the source, we can't use it ata ll,. because we don't know which X% of its stories are from the GRU. Guy (help!) 15:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per everyone above - Pure propaganda. –Davey2010Talk 20:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4: Is notable for false stories. Not reliable.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Sputnik)

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.

Counterpoint Research

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would a statistics site like Counterpoint Research be reliable to support stats? I read somewhere that Statista is unreliable, so I want to make sure.

Example URL: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/india-smartphone-share/

RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 07:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment: Carfolio.com

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As a previous attempt to post a discussion on this page didn't work. I'm opening a request for comment on the reliability of carfolio.com.

This RfC asks:

  • Should this website be considered a reliable source when sourcing information related to automobiles?
  • If the answer to the above question is yes then on what grounds should this website be considered as reliable?

U1 quattro TALK 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely less reliable than the manufacturer websites - I would go with the manufacturer websites instead of this website. There is just no editorial policy or anything suggesting that they are more reliable than car manufacturers, which would get sued if they lied about specs. Besides, their licence reads © Carfolio.com - all specifications presented on this site, their display and formatting belong to Carfolio.com. Unauthorised republishing prohibited. which seems to suggest that they own the data (which I think is not legal). And last but not the least, they seem to think that there are two Suzukis and one is an Indian company (which gives an idea about how accurate their info is). RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 11:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Not Reliable: I broadly agree with RedBulbBlueBlood9911's assessment of the site.One qualification is they do seem to have some editorial process, as at [29] under the heading "Add information" they state that "no submissions will be accepted without a veryfiable [sic] source". But, as they do not actually cite the sources on each page (as far as I can see), its impossible to determine what is cited and assess the merits of this editorial process. So essentially this makes them a tertiary source that actually obscures the sources they are based on. I would think accepting a source like this as reliable reduces the verifiability of WP, as you are essentially accepting the word of carfolio's unnamed editorial team that some unknown source is actually backing up their site. Also, I'm not a lawyer but their legal stance (in full here [30]) towards the data on the site seems unenforceable and inconsistent with the idea that their data is fully sourced. Prova MO (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Using interviews as Population censuses

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I want to put a [better source needed] template temporary after this source here: [31] my question here is can we use interviews as reliable sources for ethnolinguistic population counts. The interviewee (a famous person) claims that there are 3.2M Pashtuns in India. While the official government language census speaks of 21.800 Pashto speakers in India here [32]. But anyways is an interview of a famous (organizational) person in general considered as reliable for population ethnolinguistic counts? Casperti (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is another attempt of User:Casperti to WP:FORUMSHOP after being opposed here; additionally, User:Casperti is misrepresenting the source here. The claim is being made by the president of the All India Pakhtoon Jirga-e-Hind, an organization representing Pashtuns in India. The number of Pashto-speakers does not equal the number of Pashtuns, as Pashtuns in India speak a number of languages. AnupamTalk 01:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
another attempt?? Instead of making accusations again Could you please give me the explicit evidence for that? Beside Talk:Pashtuns#infobox you have already the comments of user Mar4d that does not support this source + you have created the wikipage of that organization which shows actually the POV in your case. In any case I am just asking whether it is even allowed. If it is not allowed then I take it back and do not have a problem with it. Casperti (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
No.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mirror

Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion

I forgot to ask this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Local papers, but is https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/keith-lemons-new-show-horrifies-22005570 reliable? I wouldn't use it myself, though that's probably not based on policy but because my late father used to work for the paper until about two months before Robert Maxwell's death and they weren't attempting to make it a reliable source then (the phrase "two and a half percent news content" was apparently bandied about a lot at the time). WP:RSP says there is no consensus amongst Wikipedians as to whether or not it is reliable.--Launchballer 15:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

When did we last discuss this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
It's fine for non-controversial stuff like direct quotes of what it itself has said, with direct attribution, and reporting of banal facts like sports scores and weather reports and the like. It's also notable that banal stuff like sports scores and weather reports are basically always available in better sources anyways, so it would be rare outside of direct, attributed quotations that it would be better than just using another source. --Jayron32 17:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Least-worst of the British tabloids, though still not great and any other source (that isn't actually worse) is to be preferred. I'd rate local papers higher. First time I read the Daily Mirror, in 2002, I had the distinct thought "this is the stupidest thing I'll read today", and I was still on Usenet at the time. I'm not sure how good it is on pop culture coverage - if it makes stuff up. That story doesn't look made-up as such, though I'm not going to consider quoting a few people on Twitter evidence of notable widespread public horror and would be reluctant to file it in the 2.5% of news content - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Obviously its not the most insightful source, the are usually better quality sources but I am not sure if it has been shown to be actually unreliable. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
yeah, I haven't heard of it being caught actually lying much. (It's lost a few defamation cases.) But just because it covers something doesn't make that thing notable, I'd say - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Meh. It's less crappy than the Mail, but if the Mirror is the only source for something then we probably shouldn't include it anyway. Guy (help!) 10:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the point of going through each possible source. Editors should always chose the best sources available and only enter information that is widely reported in relation to the subject. Generally that means not using tabloids except in certain circumstances. Where this type of source usually comes up is why some editor wants to put something into an article that they have found on their news feed and The Mirror or some other tabloid is the only remotely reliable source that has reported it. The problem is that if one source they find is blacklisted, they will find another one. But the same can be said of the broadsheets. If a story about a well-known subject is mentioned only in The Times or the Guardian, then it lacks weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
True, that is the ideal, and it is was the practice we would not even need RSN. The issue is it is used, and often as the only source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I have put the Mirror in as a source for sport scores, I figure it's not gonna lie about those and it's not a usage that implies article notability. Though I'd rather have the BBC, Guardian or Tele - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd say Daily Mirror should be posted as generally unreliable like the Daily Express. While it could be considered the "least worst" of the British tabloids, it's still important to point out that it is a tabloid, and by nature puts story in front of fact. I do agree with User:Jayron32, in that it should be okay for direct quotes, but beyond that I think it is just as hard as with other tabloids to distinguish reliable information and should be avoided when possible. Maxmmyron (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm tempted to convert this into an RfC. How do I do this?--Launchballer 02:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The Post Millennial for article Supervised injection site

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments11 people in discussion

I am not seeing much prior discussions on this source. I am considering using this source for the article Supervised injection site. They do have editorial policy posted. Graywalls (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say that most likely they follow into the "should be be attributed" category, as they have a pretty strong right-leaning bias, and despite what they may say about their "rigorous multi-level review process" they still have published misleading or outright false stories that fit their preferred narrative without proper vetting. They may correct them after the fact when called out on it by prominent fact checkers, but, combined with the heavily loaded language in which much of their reporting is written, it does not instill much faith in their reliability, at least not to the point where potentially contentious material could be stated in Wikipedia's voice without attribution. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
There's no evidence that The Post Millennial has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required for reliable sources here, particularly given that supervised injection sites are an issue at least bordering WP:MEDRS. If this study is actually as "bombshell" as claimed, there should be some mainstream and medical sources reporting on the issue. If not... well, maybe it isn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that there should be better sources who have picked up such a supposedly groundbreaking study. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this and the related Needle exchange programme seem to be riven with poor sources on both sides - blogspot pages, sloppy journalism, primary sources from advocacy groups, claims presented as undisputed fact, etc. They could definitely use attention from folks with WP:MEDRS expertise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The Post Millennial is a generally unreliable source with a reputation for advocacy and spreading misinformation. Its not appropriate to use on any article except perhaps its own even when attributed. This is a bottom of the barrel source, especially when it comes to socially contentious topics like the one here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @Horse Eye Jack:, do you have anything backing up the claim about its reputation for "advocacy and spreading misinformation"? That's a pretty contentious claim. Graywalls (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • General comment: The Post Millennial is a relatively new outlet, it has a right-leaning bias, and it produces both news and opinion journalism. There's definitely some variability with respect to the editorial rigour in their articles. With those caveats in mind, they are an increasingly influential and professionalizing outlet, and I would not agree that they "have a reputation for...spreading information." All outlets occasionally err and issue corrections (yes, even left-leaning ones!) and there's nothing remarkable about that. So treat with a bit of caution (e.g. if they use loaded adjectives, bear in mind that it may be coloured by an ideological bias, but the facts may still be true), and consider in-line attribution as needed.
  • In this context: go ahead and use it. The article is just a lengthy summary of a report, which obviously exists, and which can be cross-referenced if there are any doubts. While a right-leaning political bias may affect the framing of the article, the facts appear correct.TheBlueCanoe 19:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look reliable. As other editors have noted above, the site appears to be little more than a small, right-wing tabloid. For example, the site's "culture" column consists of little more than attacks on "SJWs" and feminists, about how America's churches "provide the most essential service of all", attacks on the ACLU, defenses of single-use plastic, etc. Articles in the "news" columns are similarly couched with right-wing talking points, and the "Coronovarius" column consists almost entirely of flattering reports of "anti-shutdown protestors" and negative coverage of politicians enacting these policies (with, of course, glowing coverage of Trump).
The site also appears to play quite loose with its coverage when it doesn't align with the narrative they present. For example, this header refers to a straightforward assault or "shooting" as a "shootout", which misleads casual readers. There was no exchange of gunfire (OED: Shoot-out: "A sustained exchange of shooting, a gun-fight.").
In short, the site appears to be essentially a tiny Breitbart, with a similar rejection of objectivity. I'm sure a closer look will reveal further issues. Whatever the case, I recommend finding a more objective source. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable (though it may be useful for Canadian political news, since some articles indicate that they have good access to party officials). Consider checking out The Post Millennial and past discussions on RSN regarding the source. A major issue is poor division between opinion and news (CBC 2019). Even for uncontroversial facts, I would prefer any more reliable source. This source has come up in BLP talk on a few occasions, and it has generally been deemed not up to snuff for that purpose (<1><2>). Jlevi (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • comment I'm seeing on here it's mostly factual, with a bit of right bias, however I am not sure if mediabiasfactcheck.com is considered a respected authority on wikipedia for source bias. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
MBFC is sometimes useful to see if they've linked anything reliable, but past RSN conversations indicate with strong consensus that the site itself shouldn't be used directly. Jlevi (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable per Jlevi and Bloodfox, who have shown misleading information and poor distinction between factual reporting and opinion. Since they are mostly aggregators, news should be cited to the original outlet. Attributed opinions are unlikely to be due weight. The CBC article says "The Post Millennial's ethics policy appears to have been largely plagiarized from other media sources. Approximately 75 per cent of the language in the policy is identical to declarations of principles from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Globe and Mail and Torstar publications." (!) That's blatant copyvio, so WP:ELNEVER may also come into consideration. buidhe 23:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably avoid using it in the particular case mentioned above for the reasons NorthBySouthBaranof and Roscelese give: if the study in question is significant, better sources will cover it, and (especially as this is a MED-adjacent topic) biased sources are not ideal. As to the general case (of whether they should be used anywhere), they're certainly a biased source in my experience seeing other TPM articles I'd seen in the process of Wikipedia articles, and now seeing specific examples provided above, and plagiarizing their ethics policy(!) and being called out for inaccurate reporting elsewhere suggests they're also an unreliable source. (One might make the usual proviso that they could be reliable for statements about their own current staff, beliefs, etc, although as the Daily Mail RfC further up this page indicates, trusting an unreliable source to be reliable even about themselves can be risky.) -sche (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable; see here, here, and here. It's comparable to Breitbart in that it makes no distinction between opinion and news, was founded to stridently advance a particular political agenda, and has a history of playing fast-and-loose with the fact as part of that goal. Perhaps most notably, while they have an ethics policy, they plagiarized much of it from the Washington Post (see the second link.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Though I agree with questioning TPM's reliability in general, I would like to note that the second source you mention (regarding the libel notice) may not be entirely useful for this discussion. I'm not familiar enough with Canadian politics to make a strong statement, but that piece is framed in terms of allegations and a lot of he-said-she-said. I don't think the piece ever makes a statement in the publication's voice. That may change if we see a a result from the court/libel case. Jlevi (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Patric Cagle and Broken People YouTube sources, and groundlings.com

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

Resting bitch face (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Groundlings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we get opinions on this and this? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Under WP:ELPOINTS, external links are generally not supposed to be used in the article body (outside of citations), and the groundlings.com links in these edits are not compliant with the guideline. The YouTube video from The Groundlings and Patric Cagle lacks independent sourcing, and should be excluded from the Resting bitch face article as undue weight; its use in the article on The Groundlings might be okay as a primary source, but should ideally be supported by an independent reliable source. On the other hand, the Broken People video was mentioned in the cited New York Times (RSP entry) article (If you’re up on your Internet memes, perhaps you’ve heard of its linguistic predecessor: “bitchy resting face,” which emerged from a parody Public Service Announcement), which makes it an acceptable primary source in the Resting bitch face article. — Newslinger talk 21:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger, thanks for commenting. I was tempted to remove the external linking, but I decided not to revert again (partially or fully) without first bringing the matter here for other opinions. I feel similarly as you do on all of this.
Pinging StylishFedora so that StylishFedora sees this if StylishFedora hasn't already. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger and Flyer22 Frozen -- The video "Resting Bitch Face" was clearly uploaded to YouTube on October 11, 2011, years before the creation of the Broken People video. That can't be in dispute. The woman in the video is the same Patric Cagle shown on the Groundlings website bio page. The man in the video is clearly the same Nate Clark as the one on his personal website and the Groundlings bio page. Would an image of the Groundlings theater program from the September 12, 2011 production (showing writing, acting, and directing credits) suffice as supporting evidence? (Confused.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StylishFedora (talk • contribs) 17:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi StylishFedora, was that performance covered in any secondary sources? Performances that are not mentioned in reliable secondary sources are usually excluded as undue weight in articles unrelated to the performers, since they are not considered prominent enough to warrant a mention in the articles. — Newslinger talk 22:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Newslinger, and thanks for the reply and guidance. I've been unable to find a secondary source that references that performance directly, but there is an article in LA Weekly[1] that references another performance (also documented on YouTube[2]) including the same two actors in the same show. If I tie them together and include a photo of the printed program from the show, would that suffice? —-- StylishFedora (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the research, but unfortunately, that's not quite enough to make the connection. The secondary source needs to explicitly mention resting bitch face in relation to one of the following: the "Bitchy Resting Face" performance (preferred), The Groundlings, or the comedians in the performance (Nate Clark and Patric Cagle). Combining two different sources that don't explicitly make this connection is a case of synthesis, which falls short of Wikipedia's requirements. — Newslinger talk 20:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger Hm. The secondary source I'm trying to find certainly wouldn't reference the Bitchy Resting Face video, since the entire point of the original edit was to prove that the Broken People sketch was not the "original" Internet reference to the phrase as its editor claims, but rather the version written by Patric Cagle and posted to YouTube years before that one ever appeared. It's hard to understand how a video titled "Resting Bitch Face" -- clearly posted years earlier than the one referenced in the article which claims to be "the original" -- could not be a de facto refutation of the (internet) origin of the phrase, regardless of supporting secondary sources. (Doesn't the mere existence of the Resting Bitch Face video prove that point?) Is there a chance that the similarity of the titles (Bitchy Resting Face v. Resting Bitch Face) has caused some confusion here? -- StylishFedora (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger & Flyer22 Frozen - There's also an issue with the final sentence in the second paragraph of the Origin section of the Resting Bitch Face article, which is worded to imply that the term "Resting Bitch Face" is not, in fact, the original phrase and / or that the Broken People video is the origin of the term, both of which are plainly proven false by the mere existence of October 11, 2011 YouTube video. StylishFedora (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the Resting bitch face article doesn't claim that the phrase originated in the Broken People sketch. It just claims that the sketch was uploaded in 2013. The first sentence of the "Origin" section also includes an assertion that "the phrase dates back 'at least ten years'" before 2013. I'm not seeing any issues with the content in the article. The 2011 performance from The Groundlings doesn't meet the due weight requirement to be included into the article unless an reliable and independent secondary source is available that describes it in relation to "resting bitch face". — Newslinger talk 03:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger I disagree. Because the sentence that begins, "It has since gone on..." is in the same paragraph (and immediately follows) the "Bitchy Resting Face" reference, and because that sentence ends, "to become more commonly known," the implication is that the "It" of that sentence refers to the Broken People video as the origin of the phrase, which is refuted even by the NYT article, if not by the existence of the Patric Cagle video. The phrase was always "resting bitch face" so it did not "become more commonly known" as that. StylishFedora (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I've changed "It" to "The facial expression" for precision. Although we're not able to use the 2011 video, this clears up the ambiguity. — Newslinger talk 23:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
With respect, I disagree that changing the pronoun is enough. The very fact that the reference to the Broken People video is placed in the Origin section (instead of in the "Spread in wider culture" section) implies to the reader that the Broken People video is the origin. I think a fair argument can be made that the NY Times article which states the phrase was at least ten years old is more than enough evidence to specifically not include a reference to the Broken People video in the Origin section. Regardless, I removed the "become more commonly known" bit and now I think it's much clearer. Thanks for your help on this. StylishFedora (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. I've renamed the "Origin" section to "History", since the content does not clearly expain what the origin of the term is. I hope you find this satisfactory. — Newslinger talk 19:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lovell Estell III (December 22, 2011). "Camp Sunday". Retrieved May 26, 2020.
  2. ^ "Signs from God". Patric Cagle. January 21, 2012. Retrieved May 26, 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Hong Kong Free Press

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Could Hong Kong Free Press had requested for this source [33] and [34] for democracy protests and Tiananmen massacre vigil ban in Hong Kong, including China. --TheMuscovian (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheMuscovian: Sorry, what is the question? — MarkH21talk 01:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
It means it reports and stories about Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, and some topics about COVID-19 pandemic. --TheMuscovian (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I still don’t understand. Are you asking whether the Hong Kong Free Press is a reliable source for those topics? — MarkH21talk 01:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Is B'Tselem a RS?

Latest comment: 4 years ago42 comments14 people in discussion

There have been several posts here in the past about B'Tselem that I've found, and from what I can tell about the consensus is that it can be used but at the very least it needs to have inline attribution. B'Tselem is an advocacy organization, not merely an NGO, as such it has a POV and we should not attribute something to it in Wikipedia's voice. I found discussions here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Reliability_of_Israeli_human_rights_organization_B'Tselem , Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_78#CAMERA_/_Alex_Safian and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_170#POICA_&_Israel. In the IP conflict area, any pro-Israel NGO is often dismissed automatically, yet ARIJ and B'Tselem is allowed because it's pro-Palestinian, even though they play loose with the facts (as was shown with B'Tselem a few weeks ago with Coronavirus and the UN). Regardless, I think there should finally be a decision that this NGO doesn't speak for Wikipedia and is not a RS that can be used for a neutral ref-tag without an "according to B'Tselem..." Sir Joseph (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It simply is not true that B'tselem is a "pro-Palestinian NGO" nor is it true that pro-Israel NGOs are dismissed out of hand. B'tselem is a human rights group, and one with a sterling reputation internationally. NGOs that do not have a a good reputation may be (example CAMERA as you note), but B'tselem does have such a reputation. Other reliable sources (eg NYTimes[35][36][37][38] BBC[39][40][41] the Guardian[42][43][44]) regularly cite B'tselem. nableezy - 03:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Up above you claimed Virtual Jewish Library isn't a RS, even though it's cited by the NYTimes many times. And what is wrong with CAMERA? They report on media inaccuracies. The fact that they are pro-Israel means that you don't like it. There's also NGO Monitor, which is pro-Israel, that gets tossed out often, and Ad-Kan. Please let's not pretend that there's an even playing field here. (You say there are pro-Israel NGO's that are allowed, can you name some?)Sir Joseph (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
A source isnt reliable or unreliable by virtue of its stance on Israel or Palestine or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is reliable or unreliable by virtue of its reputation for fact checking among other sources. JVL does not have a good reputation. B'tselem does. Therein lies the difference. nableezy - 03:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, a pro-Israel NGO that is used? Hmmm, the ADL? ITIC? Some of the worse ones that are still used include the Hudson Institute. Being pro-Israel or any other position isnt what determines if a source is usable. nableezy - 04:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • As to the matter, they are a political advocacy group. They aren't just for human rights. They are against settlements which is a political issue. They also routinely ignore human rights when it's perpetrated from the Palestinians, or worse, see Ezra Nawi for just one example. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Reliability and bias are two separate things. B'Tselem has a reputation for accuracy. Maybe the Virtual Jewish Library does as well, but that's another conversation. TFD (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
That's the thing, it doesn't have a reputation for reliability, it has been found repeatedly to make things up. This was in March when even the UN praised Israel and the PA's cooperation, [45]. If they are biased, their sourcing should not be in Wiki's voice. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The Israeli military is not the source of truth in this world, sorry. That they accuse B'tselem of something does not make their well-earned reputation for fact-checking and accuracy not true. nableezy - 03:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Right, so B'Tselem makes up fake news, and Israel corrects it and it's published in multiple RS, but according to you, only the B'tselem source is usable. Does that make sense? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Im sorry, I stopped reading at "fake news". nableezy - 04:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Youre bringing the chief of staff of NGO Monitor writing and saying that trumps the NYT or the BBC or the Guardian who all regularly cite B'tselem. Thats not how reliability is determined.And, oh by the way, note what said chief of staff of NGO Monitor wrote: the European Union, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland continue to fund B’Tselem. Thats because of their oh so sterling reputation. nableezy - 04:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Just a side note here, when you say regularly cite them I am just not seeing it. Most of the sources you list are over a decade old. PackMecEng (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
NYT: [47][48] [49]

BBC: [50][51][[52]

Reuters: [53][54][55]

Those recent enough for you? nableezy - 04:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup! Thank you, though it is kind of funny, the last two Reuters articles copy paste the paragraph cited to B'Tselem. PackMecEng (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Just as with good news sources, the distinction between facts and opinion can usually be identified in Btselem's output. In the case of opinion, "according to" is appropriate. In the case of facts, its reputation for accuracy is very strong. Zerotalk 05:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
On what you base you claim that they are trustworthy?They are even don't pretend to be some neutral observer.They have clear agenda so everything they present should be taken with their agenda in mind --Shrike (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
You cannot assert that the 'facts' themselves are biased. Camera's mission is to spin the facts, not document the realities. One has a forensic approach to a 'crime scene', the other gives a tabloid account in which the assailant was compelled to defend themselves against the 'victim'.Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Is that your neutral unbiased opinion? Perhaps this is reason enough why Wikipedia is biased. Terribly shocking. Camera just reports on the media's inaccuracy. I hope people don't presume to say that the media is accurate all the time, but of course it's yet another pro-Israel RS that is labeled as not-RS by people here, just like NGO Monitor, and others.Sir Joseph (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable B'tselem is an NGO with positions based on international human rights law and has gained international awards for this work. The executive director, Hagai El-Ad has twice been invited to address (in 2014 and 2018) the UN Security Council. It receives funding from the EU and other governments. Their reports and statistics are widely cited. Does this sound unreliable?.Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Unusually Reliable and Zero's point on the distinction between its reportage on facts versus comments that may be construed as B'tselem opinions, should be followed with regard to whether to attribute or not when citing this source.
Additional Comment. There is a lot of verbal confusion here, such as calling B'tselem an 'advocacy group', and unfamiliarity with what it does. An NGO whose remit is basically to document empirically (and this involves extensive field work interviewing people involved in incidents in order to sift out the facts from witness bias, as well as constructing vast databases, with statistical analyses) human rights abuses measures these in terms of two systems of law: Israeli and International. This is not 'advocacy' in the usual negative sense of the term, as biased lobbying for some cause. As one book puts it.

'Information on Israeli human rights violations is highly politicized. B'tselem, the Israeli Information center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories is perhaps the best neutral source.' Jack Donnelly, 'International human rights: unintended consequences of the war on terrorism,' in Margaret Crahan, John Goering, Thomas G. Weiss (eds.), The Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: Human Rights, Unilateralism and US Foreign Policy, Routledge, 2004 ISBN 978-1-135-99507-2 pp.98-111, p.110 n.10

We use mainstream newspapers whose reportage is basically breaking news written rapidly as every incident unfolds, without attribution all over these I/P articles. B'tselem instead exhaustively sends out interviewers to ascertain from all eyewitnesses (and from Israeli army reports and legal judgements) what actually appears to have happened, and is infinitely more objective. The fact that what it reports is often upsetting to espousers or spinners of the official government or military line doesn't make it an advocacy organization and indeed even the IDF has long admitted that it is dependable, as witness the following statement by the Israeli historian and senior IDF figure, Mordechai Bar-On

In one case the IDF chief of staff publicly challenged the numbers B'tselem reported on Palestinian casualties, and subsequently apologized when he learned that his figures were wrong and B'tselem's report was correct. In later years the military authorities often asked B'tselem to confirm their own information.' Mordechai Bar-On, In Pursuit of Peace: A History of the Israeli Peace Movement, US Institute of Peace Press ISBN 978-1-878-37953-5 1996 p.401 n.119

In short, recourse to RSN re B'tselem should stop until there emerges, not from notorious activist NGOs touting an official viewpoint, but from serious sources analyzing its actual performance, any evidence it systematically indulges in spinning the facts it reports so abundantly. It is more reliable than most of our unquestioned mainstream newspapers.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you not get the irony and hypocrisy here? So B'Tselem is OK, but another NGO is a "activist NGO?" NGO Monitor showed when B'Tselem made stuff up, just in March it made up a story about the coronavirus, yet it was dismissed because it was NGO Monitor, and IDF was dismissed because it was IDF, so the bias is clear for all to see. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
You seem to fail to understand that NGO Monitor is not reliable and they havent shown anything. What Btselem reported was that Israel confiscated tents the Palestinians designated for a clinic. That has also been reported by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and as a result of those complaints the IDF has said they will stop demolitions in the West Bank. Not quite the silly spin you would like to put on this. You cant take crap sources complaining about ones that actually have a solid reputation and use that as evidence against said solid reputation. That has nothing to do with hypocrisy, and you would do well to stop making such personal attacks that have literally no basis in fact. nableezy - 19:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Why isn't NGO Monitor not reliable? And what B'tselem report was not that the IDF will stop demolishing stuff, but that the IDF confiscated supplies and demolished tents, yet they did no such thing. You are posting a news article that has nothing to do with what I posted. Bottom line is B'Tselem has ceased to be a neutral and human rights org and is now an advocacy org. It is not a RS. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Youve made your position on that clear. Unfortunately nobody else seems to agree with it, nor do the many sources that cite B'tselem as the widely respected human rights organization that it is. Why isnt NGO Monitor reliable? Thats like asking why isnt Electronic Intifida reliable. But its because serious sources dont treat it as a serious source for reliable information, but rather as essentially a propganda outfit known to lie and distort in order to advance its agenda. Youre comparing the equivalents of Electronic Intifida and If Americans Knew and demanding that they be treated like B'tselem. Thats just silly. nableezy - 04:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
SJ. Don't assert that I am being hypocritical.It is an WP:AGF violation. You are making a simple categorical error, which I guess I'll have to explain to you.
There is a category NGO.
Both B'tselem and NGO Monitor are subsumed within that category.
Therefore anything that is said of one, applies to the other. If B'tselem is OK as a source, so it any other NGO commenting on, or active, in that area.
Is it really necessary to explain to you that subsets of a category are not, by virtue of belonging to the same category, interchangeable? Or that because Jews, Christians and Muslims are subsets of the broad category Abrahamic religions, what is said of any one of the three applies automatically to the other two? Jeezus! (sorry, tetragrammaton, for the life of the prophet!).Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Attribute, like media does. They are an advocacy group, though a respected advocacy group.--Hippeus (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Attribute per Buidhe. ​Also per the previous discussions cited above, this is clearly not a neutral think tank, but an advocacy organization. Data from this group should be clearly attributed whenever used.YUEdits (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me summarize.

  • It was asked if B'tselem was a reliable source. The answer is unequivocably yes.
  • Many editors think attribution is required because it is an NGO. It was pointed out in the original discussion 9 years ago that since B'tselem is a major source for facts in the I/P area, reflex attribution everytime would mar innumerable pages with a formulaic repetitiveness.

'I think that formulation may be too critical of B'tselem. The question here is really whether and when in-text attribution is necessary. IMHO, much or most of the time it is not. We should focus on what is actually controversial, everything can be potentially controversial, especially here. Much of the actual criticism of B'tselem could be characterized as nitpicking or cavilling,...Right now, the article in question has too many "According to B'Tselem"'s, detracting from readability and doing little positive'John Z

  • For this reason, (given also that the Israeli army itself, whose actions B'tselem often criticizes, is known to accept that it is accurate- I recall one general remarking that it kept the army on its toes) User:Zero0000 offered a sensible suggestion:
  • Source facts to it, and only use attribution when B'tselem offers an opinion, a position he affirmed in 2011.

Btselem is undoubtedly Israel's most widely respected human rights organization. Of course anything potentially controversial sourced to them should clearly indicate them as the source (which goes for all NGOs). Zero

  • So. Recent bad habits of reverting out B'tselem as not RS are against consensus. This is resolved as it was in 2011.
  • But editors have yet to clarify the point about attribution issue raised also in 2011: (a)invariably or (b)occasionally, according to the nature of what is being cited. If (b) you get formula splatter, which mars pages.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Attribute. I personally take their reports seriously, but this is a TA where it's difficult to establish a "baseline" of reliability (eg. some source with which to compare others), so any source that might be seen as "taking a side" should be attributed. This applies to most every local governmental and non-governmental organization, some foreign governments and a host of media entities. François Robere (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The full name for B'Tselem is "The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied territories". This is therefore clearly an advocacy organization, and one that advocates a rather unpopular point of view in Israel. It has therefore all the incentive to be biased in its reporting. That is one reason I think that information from this source is suspect. In addition, when I look at the list of Board Members I am unimpressed by the general academic level (chaired by a high-tech executive, includes a script-writer), and very much impressed by how many political activists are on the board... Not to mention the fact that there is no indication that the board exercises any editorial control. Last but not least, their website has a blog section. In short, this organization is likely to be very POV in its reporting, has no indication of editorial supervision of its publications, and in general does not impress with its academic level. As a result, the blog section is of course completely unreliable, and the rest of its publications are likely so biased and lacking editorial control, that they can not be used as reliable sources either. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Nableezy has said above: "It simply is not true that B'tselem is a "pro-Palestinian NGO" nor is it true that pro-Israel NGOs are dismissed out of hand. B'tselem is a human rights group, and one with a sterling reputation internationally." His opinion has been quoted by others here as a reason to consider B'Tselem a reliable source. However, reading his statement makes it clear that his opinion is only based on argument by assertion, and therefore lacks any basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:SCHOLARSHIP for example warns of the dangers of scholarly publications "that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view" and that is all the more true when this is not even a scholarly publication. WP:BIASEDSOURCES acknowledges that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" but also asks us to "consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering", and B'Tselem is lacking at least in the first of these requirements. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Uh, it isn't my opinion. Haaretz: Israeli human rights NGO, NYT an Israeli human rights group that monitors the treatment of Palestinians, NYT the Israeli human rights group. Please dont pretend like I am asserting something that has literally thousands of sources backing it up. But claiming that an argument by assertion (which was not made) is invalid and then proceeding to actually argue by assertion and not offer any evidence for your comment is a little funny. nableezy - 14:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
And, as for those other reliable sources citing B'tselem, please see WP:UBO. Whether or not the POV is unpopular in Israel is literally the least important thing I've read in weeks. What matters is how other reliable sources treat B'tselem, and they treat it as reliable. nableezy - 14:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Robert C. DiPrizio (29 February 2020). Conflict in the Holy Land: From Ancient Times to the Arab-Israeli Conflicts. ABC-CLIO. pp. 51–. ISBN 978-1-4408-6748-4.
Brief review - "B'tselem is internationally recognized for its work on behalf of human rights..."
Donal Carbaugh (19 August 2016). The Handbook of Communication in Cross-cultural Perspective. Taylor & Francis. pp. 318–. ISBN 978-1-317-48560-5.
Marc H. Ellis (19 September 2017). The Heartbeat of the Prophetic. Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 383–. ISBN 978-1-5326-1906-9.
So easy to find RS approving of B'tselem. Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
These source only mention that B'Tselem exists and that it is a group of political activists in the field of human rights. That is not the question here. The question here is if they are a reliable source, and that I do not see written in these sources. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
When reliable sources cite a source, and do so repeatedly, that shows its reliability. Again, see WP:UBO. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that B'tselem is regularly cited by reliable sources. nableezy - 01:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC Revisiting Hackaday

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Hackaday is currently listed in the WP:SOURCEGUIDE as "no consensus" per the previous discussion. In the previous discussion, the editorial policies was not discussed. These policies are posted on their website at https://hackaday.com/policies/

When you contribute content to Hackaday, you retain ownership of the copyright, and you also grant permission to us to display and distribute it. In addition, you are responsible for the content of that material.

Hackaday has no responsibility for the content of any messages or information posted by readers. We, in our sole discretion, may or may not review, edit, or delete from the service any material which we deem to be illegal, offensive or otherwise inappropriate. The tenor of the projects we feature on the service regularly use items in ways they were not originally intended (hack) and readers must understand the implications of this. Hackaday makes no guarantees or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of content or the result of accessing and using information on our site. We shall not be liable to anyone for any damages resulting from information found on the service, even if damages are the result of inaccuracy, error, omission, or any other cause. The opinions expressed by our editors and contributors are their own and not those of Hackaday.

We reserve the right to unpublish or refuse to unpublish anything for any reason or for no reason whatsoever.

With this new information taken in to account, I'd like to reconvene discussion on use of Hackaday as sources. Essentially, the only editorial oversight seems to be that they only choose to host or not host submitted contents. I argue that this source should be considered unreliable for factual accuracy, fair due weight presentation and notability building purposes just like HuffPost and Forbes contributor articles are treated in WP:RSP. Graywalls (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am the Editor in Chief of Hackaday. First off, thank you for considering our site as a reliable source. We do indeed have an editorial practice that oversees all articles published. All contributors are paid for their work and have contracts making them part of our writing team. We follow editing practices that ensure every article is edited and fact checked by one of the editors (there is no circumstance under which anyone publishes their own work without an editor reviewing it, including me). You can review the of our current contributors and editors on the about page. We do not accept content from outside of our writing team, and we do not publish sponsored content. The policies page that Graywalls linked to is quite old, having been published in 2014. It doesn't reflect our current system which has been in place since 2015, and needs to be updated. Szczys (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • If so than all pre-2015 content is likely unusable. buidhe 23:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I hold the position that Hackaday contents should be treated as WP:SPS and doesn't rise much above WP:BLOGS with very limited use in factual information (what are the qualifications of the editors?) and unusable for supporting notability of other organizations. The editorial policy explained by the involved staff member here is quite meaningless without the editorial policy clearly being published on the website itself. Graywalls (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hackaday RfC

  • Option 1: May be useful for satisfying verifiability, but should not be used for purpose of determining notability.
  • Option 2: generally reliable.
  • Option 3: It's a blog. Generally unreliable for factual reporting and should be treated as any other WP:BLOGS
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Hackaday RfC response

  • RS Depends on context - seems fine on actual articles and technical content. Really this needs to note subsections about, -- the article space is separate from the blog area. Just like cspan or cnn here the webzine section has editorial control and paid writers, a mix of created content and curated collection; the blog section does not. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable regarding the article space. The writers are experts in their fields, they have a technical background and they do not seem to feature articles that are outside the scope of the expertise of the writers. I agree with User:Markbassett. I also think that Hackaday can be used for establishing notability. Dwaro (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Huffington post

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Is this true "HuffPo is not considered a RS in general and must not be used in the context wherever there are doubts about its articles, as in this BLP. Removing what was not a position of AI" as a user has suggested at Piers Robinson?Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • To give actual context, Piers is a UK academic currently best well known for being part of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, including Vanessa Beeley and others that have alleged the Douma chemical attack was staged (see [58]), and that that the White Helmets were "actively involved in managing a massacre of civilians" (see [59]) and has been criticised for this in The Times [60] [61] and the HuffPost [62] [63], and has also been criticised for being a 9/11 skeptic in the latter, see [64]. All of the posts criticising Piers in the Huffpost are by the same author, Chris York, senior editor at HuffPost UK. Kashmiri thinks that the HuffPost is blanket unreliable and has been repeatedly removing the sources, citing them to be BLP violations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I never said that HuffPo "is blanket unreliable"; I warned that we should not include controversial or defamatory information about living persons based on a HuffPost article – especially when the article author is a self-confessed "specialist in conspiracy theory debunking"[65], which simply means his writings are likely to be influenced by his personal point of view. BLPs are a tricky area and whenever there are sourcing doubts re. controversial information, it should rather be left out. — kashmīrī TALK 14:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Kashmiri I think that's fair, and I apologise if you think I misrepresented your position. I agree that I would rather use another source rather than the Huffington Post, but due to a lack of reliable secondary sources we are left with relatively few options. How do you feel about citing the WGSPM documents cited in the HuffPost articles directly, alongside the articles themselves? I am uncomforable with citing the WGSPM or Robinsons's writing directly, as these are WP:PRIMARY sources and feels uncomfortably close to WP:OR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to not use HuffPost. It's a perfectly legitimate news outlet and their journalists go to all the same briefings the paper newspapers' do. It's neither a tabloid nor party political. GPinkerton (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The OP's initial statement makes it seem like HuffPo is not reliable. Wikipedia has reached no conclusion that it is or isn't reliable, as there's never been a broad RFC on the general reliability. It is treated as reliable by other scrupulously reliable sources which cite and quote it frequently, which is usually a hallmark of general reliability, but Wikipedia has not had the discussion per se. I would treat it as generally reliable for its factual and investigative reporting, and as with any source, including the really reliable ones, published opinion pieces and unvetted guest contributions are not news anyways. --Jayron32 04:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree there is no problem with citing news articles from HuffPo. The fact the particular journalist, a senior editor,[66] describes himself as "specialis[ing] in US politics, conspiracy theory debunking, and explaining complex stories in a way that won't make your head hurt" does not diminish his reliability, merely names his areas of expertise, which include the topic of the WP article in question. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PanAm Post

Latest comment: 4 years ago31 comments8 people in discussion
There is consensus that PanAm Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting (Option 3). Some editors showed its use by other reliable sources (e.g. the AP) and suggested that only its opinion section was troubling. However there was overall consensus that its point of view impacted its new coverage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 23 June 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.

Hello! Another source that has raised questions: PanAm Post. I noticed that PanAm Post was describing a member of their staff as having a Harvard University "degree". They say that Emmanuel Rincón, a self-published author (WP:QUESTIONABLE/WP:RSSELF) who writes for the site, has "a degree in Modern Masterpieces of World Literature from Harvard University". That "degree" is a free edX course provided by Harvard (see here, where 40,000 people are already enrolled!). This raises concerns about their reliability and if the site exaggerates the credentials of their staff (or their reporting).

So I am asking the community to decide the following evaluations about PanAm Post:

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Not sure if these type of RSN RfCs are still permitted since changes were proposed when I was last active, but a few opinions on this source would be appreciated!----ZiaLater (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  • An embellished author profile is concerning, but these profiles are often embellished though normally not as above. Are there any other red flags? Looking at their website, much of the content appears to be opinions.--Hippeus (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2: PanAm Post has been listed in WP:VENRS, an essay dedicated to list and analyze reliable sources for Venezuela related topics, where it has been described as: Miami-based newspaper, described as "libertarian". Generally reliable, but news articles should be differentiated from opinion pieces and original invetigations, which should be attributed.
It appears that PanAm Post is generally considered as reliable to report news.
PanAm Post was the outlet that published an investigation denouncing the embezzlement of payments for the housing of Venezuelan military defectors by representatives of opposition leader Juan Guaidó in Colombia, which led to the audit and investigation of the situation afterwards. However, there have also been concerns about its neutrality and reliability after Orlando Avendaño [es] assumed the position of chief editor, along with Vanessa Vallejo [es]. Care should be taken with opiniated articles.
I don't know if there are different authors or important differences between the English and Spanish versions, but this should also be taen into account.
I stand with the original description, that if used, PanAm Post articles should be attributed. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
PS: Since the source has been described as "libertarian", the Cato Institute RfC, which has received similar allegations, might be relevant to the discussion, and it might help to invite editors more knowledgeable about this. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Have you ever read them? Their editorial and opinion section is openly right wing, often comically so, (for example [67] header: "Few dare to acknowledge the reality that the world has been dominated by different shades of the left, over the last century. And to move forward, we must recognize that we have been defeated. It is time to rethink the world and Latin America"), something that cant be said of right of center publications like the WSJ. If you’ve read them for a while you might have noticed that the opinion section tends to bleed over into the journalism more than is appropriate from a reliable source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Also for what its worth the author of that extremist opinion piece is the guy "with a degree in Modern Masterpieces of World Literature from Harvard University” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I guess this is where opiniated articles should be distinguished from their reliability. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
No this isn't, if they had a separate editorial board and journalistic staff that would be one thing but they don't. That guy writes both opinion pieces and news articles (with barely a change in tone I might add). Thats just not something a reliable source does, sorry. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Ball is on the board of Atlas Network. Atlas Network states the following about Ball: Mr. Ball was until recently a regular columnist of Venezuela’s leading daily newspaper, El Universal ... Mr. Ball was amongst Venezuela’s most vocal public critics of the new Venezuelan Constitution proposed (and now in force) by Hugo Chávez in 1999. At the time, Venezuela’s leading daily newspaper “El Universal” described Mr. Ball as the “mastermind” of the campaign against the approval of the new constitution in the referendum of December 15, 1999. During the fall of 2001, Mr. Ball was named Chairman of the Organizing Committee of the first national work stoppage organized by the Federation of Chambers of Commerce jointly with the Federation of Trades Unions to protest against the autocratic tendencies of Hugo Chavez. In 2004 Mr. Ball was formally accused of “Civil Rebellion” and “Treason” by the National Prosecutor in Venezuela. In an article titled "The failure of the left" by Ball, we see his thoughts on Venezuela, writing "Since 1958 Venezuela has had nothing but leftist governments." He described the PanAm Post as his pet project, saying "PanAm Post has been more a vocation ... rather than a business activity". According to Ball in an error-ridden PanAm Post article, the Trump administration has even described the PanAm Post as "a Russian Troll" after he criticized the US for not maintaining a "credible threat of force on the Maduro regime". Ball has also discounted The New York Times and described it as the "Soviet Times" in an article that again said that Venezuela has only had left-wing governments.
The PanAm Post also promotes climate change denial articles against the scientific consensus on climate change as well, writing things such as "I, for one, am thrilled to have access to a cheap and practical source of energy: fossil fuels are not going to destroy the planet or make it uninhabitable for human and animal life" and the "Proud to Be a 'Man-Made Climate Change' Denier" article that describes global warming as "[a] massive lie designed to manipulate global policy into a wealth redistribution system. ... It is better to be a denier and free than a believer drinking the cyanide laced flavor-aide (it wasn’t cool-aid) in a socialist paradise".
Then you have the PanAm Post being picked up by Snopes for regurgitating unproven information from The Epoch Times, which has been deprecated on WP:RSP. Emmanuel Rincon, the questionable editor mentioned above, even cites The Epoch Times when discussing COVID-19 in China.
In summary, we have an extremist founder who created PanAm Post as a "vocation" that attacks what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources, with PanAm Post being used as a platform for climate change denial and anti-China rhetoric resued from The Epoch Times (among other fringe topics), while their staff uses possibly cooked-up credentials. This seems like a similar case to The Grayzone, with WP:RSP stating Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight. This seems like a blog for Ball and friends, not a reliable source.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this should be heavily judged on Venezuelan politics. Venezuelan politics are a mess. Many journalists have spoken against the Venezuelan government and accusations by Maduro administration do not usually add to much. Also PanamPost has also been very investigative on Maduro's rival Juan Guaidó, even finding reported corruption scandals, see Reuters. On the Russian Troll affair, the Soviet Times, Greta Thurnberg and China articles, those are labeled "politics and opinion", we need to discuss news articles and not opinion. Additionally, even if Ball founded it, could you clarify what is his position in the publication? it is certainly not the only reporter, while in The Grayzone a moderate percent of articles are pure Blumenthal (its main editor). For the rest you posted, I have nothing to say, it should be weighted in, I guess climate denial and anti-China go along with their libertarian bias.--ReyHahn (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The anti-authoritarianism can be credited to their libertarian roots but there is nothing libertarian about climate denial nor is that a position that most libertarians hold. Climate denial is more a fusionist position and when found within libertarianism is pretty much only found within right-libertarianism. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, Devonian Wombat also has a good point that their opinion and news articles blend together (sometimes within the same news and opinion categories). Overall, their website is a mess and promotes some dubious material.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per ZiaLater's and DW's investigations. Website clearly publishes false and misleading info deliberately—not as an oversight—and cannot be trusted to tell the truth. buidhe 00:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    Again, it seems to soon to call option 4. As showed by my comment above Panam Post is considered reliable in some fields and some of their original investigations have been showed to be relevant and confirmed by sources like AP. For what I've seen it is at worst option 2 for SOMETIMES mixing opinions and facts without a clear label, which just demands precaution.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    Up until now, nobody has provided a non-opinion article reporting false news. The publication could be easily labeled option 2, demanding precaution and saying that it can be partisan to (right) libertarian views.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@ReyHahn: chill out. Respect WP:BLUDGEON as well as other people's opinions. It certainly *can* be option 4 and I would say that the stories already shared meet the standard for publishing false and misleading views but personally I don’t think they’re important enough to deprecate. I think thats something we should reserve for sources people are trying hard to use despite their unreliability, this source appears to neither notable or reliable. I certainly *could* have iVoted for option 4 though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Understood, I decided to modify the wording on the opening of the comment.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Also per my sources above, it appears to be certainly notable in South American news. Reliability is what we are trying to measure here.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that if a source posts false or misleading information negligently, it should be marked generally unreliable, if it does so deliberately, than deprecation is appropriate. buidhe 05:59, 4 June 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.

Vector Marketing

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Looking for opinions: is this article considered a reliable source for sourcing a lawsuit against Vector Marketing, specifically for the claim below?

In 2003, a recruit who was successful in a lawsuit against Vector for failing to adhere to labor laws in New York, co-founded a group, Students Against Vector Exploitation (SAVE).

The source in question is authored by the group whose co-founder initiated the lawsuit. This seems to fail WP:RELIABLE and/or WP:SECONDARY.

This is the existing source on the page for the lawsuit claim above, which bears no mention of a lawsuit. Because of this, the existing source was replaced with a "citation needed" tag and another editor reverted that edit claiming the source is verifiable. After starting a discussion on the talk page, the only source that was found to backup the lawsuit claim is the above article in question. Looking to get additional opinions from other editors.

As a side note, sourcing seems to be an ongoing issue on this page and could use some extra set of eyes. For example the Popsci source was previously discussed here and subsequently removed from the page, yet it is currently on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayepaolo (talk • contribs) 19:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

​I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, as this discussion was not submitted as a request for comment (RfC). If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the instructions at WP:RFCST, and use a brief and neutral statement as the first signed comment in the discussion. — Newslinger talk 07:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Press Releases

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Can press releases be considered realiable sources? In the article VITAL the press releases below are used 9 times as inline references: GlobalNewsWire; Businesswire; EurekaAlert; The Corporate Counsel. If NO, can secondary sources based on the same press release be considered reliable? See the links to Busines Insider, Vice, Fortune, Multitudes in the article. Thank you for your advise. --Postconfused (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

For attributed claims, yes. And for nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
They're primary sources. If you have long slabs of article sourced only to press releases, they should probably be removed - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
To clarify - the problem is usually not an RS one - it's WP:UNDUE, it doesn't connote notability, it's promotional, etc. In harsh sourcing environments, e.g. cryptocurrencies, the press releases and their claims should generally just be removed. In less harsh environments they might be useful; they're definite evidence the company said the things in the press release. But they don't connote notability of the fact, or that it should be included.
Secondary sources closely based on the press release are considered churnalism, and are functionally not much better than a press release - an article backed only by a wave of churnalism is likely to die at AFD, for not meeting WP:NCORP.
The article VITAL (machine learning software) has proper RSes that talk about the thing independently; it might be an idea to cut it more strictly to those. But that's an UNDUE thing, not an RS thing - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you David Gerard. Unfortunately, the article did not die at AfD. No consensus(!?), despite the fact that the Columbia Business Law Review  Corporate Management in the Age of AI and the New Yorker clearly stated that such press release was incorrect and exaggerated and "it was a lure for gullible outlets". Now I am going to rewrite the article but I wonder if the press releases and related churnalism can be removed. Once again, thank you for your advise!Postconfused (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Press releases have zero usability for establishing notability. They're useful mostly for expanding and supporting factual claims for which a reliable source has already mentioned. "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." from WP:SPS. Moreover, we don't include anything on the face of earth that's verifiable WP:ONUS Graywalls (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As someone who largely works on scientific articles, I would say that citing a press release that accompanies a scientific paper is essentially pointless and only the paper itself should generally be cited, as the press release generally adds nothing that isn't in the paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Seconded - David Gerard (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia thanks for your comment. Would you consider the following three peer reviewed journals in the same article reliable? Multitudes, Critical Times (Duke Press) and the Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law (ref, 13, 17, 18)? They just quote the press releases or the above chournalism. --Postconfused (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Postconfused:, the ref "Coding Time " in Critical Times (Duke Press), which is a Critical theory analysis made by a scholar well known for his work in Critical race theory, is absolutely post-modernist nonsense, it looks like the computer science brother of the Sokal Hoax, "Algorithmic memory is made up of myriad data points, latent until invoked, static until plugged into algorithmic movement with a beginning and end in exactly that order, formulaically bounded" What? I'm not sure it would be worth citing as attributed opinion of a humanities scholar or not, but it has absolutely no scientific merit as a critique. The Multitudes article is considerably better written (at least in auto google translate to english), but I think the author does not have a clear idea of what an algorithm actually is. I can't read the last article as it is all in Mandarin. For the two articles I can read, the question is not on their reliability, as they are for the most part opinion pieces, but whether citing them consitiutes WP:DUE weight. I definitely think the citation to the postmodernist scholar is undue weight, but I am iffy about the Multitudes one, maybe the section should be re-named to responses? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia Thank you bery much, I really appreciate your feedback. Postconfused (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia, not least because the press releases habitually grossly misrepresent the research and its significance. Guy (help!) 15:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Business Insider reliable for an underrated college?

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Business Insider has declared The Catholic University of America to be one of the most underrated schools in America. They've used an objective measure to determine which are over-, under-, and properly rated, but it may or may not be the best way to determine this. Are they a reliable source for this type of claim? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

USNews is a RS for ranking. Atsme Talk 📧 15:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, Thanks, but that's not really what I was looking for here. Business Insider actually uses US News' rankings in their own analysis. What do you think about using BI's rating? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole, Business Insider is (as the name suggests) a business magazine, mainly known as an outlet for PR. Why would you use their interpretation of more reliable sources? This is not an area they are known for. Stick with the USNews ratings. Guy (help!) 17:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Its a listicle with an interesting but dodgy methodology. It compares college ranking with mid career salary of people willing to report. Its a primary source of its own research. Since BI isn't expert in college ranking I would say it is not reliable for content in wikipedias voice. Since it is primary I would say it is undue.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Toki Pona

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Can anyone weigh in on the reliability of some of the sourcing for this article, Toki Pona?

As an uninvolved editor I reverted an edit a week or so ago, that was cited to this google site. The editor has now reverted and left me this message at my talk. I'm pretty sure all of the items I listed above fail WP:RELIABLE and/or WP:SECONDARY (and that was just a quick glance at the references for that page, there are undoubtedly more), but I'd appreciate some input. Also, @Devbali02: Heiro 18:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Disruptive editing: repeated addition of badly sourced information by Devbali02 --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
In the email message[73] Devbali02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claimes "The website in question, https://sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji, is the official website of sitelen Emoji." The page is referenced at https://github.com/holtzermann17/toki-pona-emoji/issues/3 and references https://www.reddit.com/r/sitelenEmoji and https://www.facebook.com/groups/486127038880577/ so I think we can treat them all as WP:PRIMARY sources for Sitelen Emoji. The question in my mind is this: is there any WP:WEIGHT evidence that justifies making any mention of Sitelen Emoji anywhere on Wikipedia?
Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Emoji_Set_of_Sitelen_Emoji_as_of_April_2020.jpg
Finally, this edit[74] makes my think we are either dealing with a COI editor or a misleading username. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I think there is a lot of WP:OR, WP:COI, and WP:SELFPROMO at that article, on top of the WP:PRIMARY vs WP:SECONDARY issue. But I do not know enough about the subject, and do not have time to comb through that article to figure it all out. My list above was literally from a quick glance at a few of the references. It needs a thorough going over though. Heiro 23:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Response to the claims that this is a COI: I don't have my name mentioned in the most recent edit. It is important to understand here that Sitelen Emoji is not "an organization." It is neither a company, nor a non profit, nothing. It is simply a writing system for toki pona. Yes, I am involved in it, and have made certain tools for it. But as was mentioned in the edit, sitelen emoji is simply a set of emojis chosen by the community. I do not own sitelen emoji. If you want, another person knowledgeable about sitelen emoji can make this edit. But since your allegations may have resulted from confusion as to what edit you are reversing and what sitelen emoji is. You should look at the text in the edit for what it is. I have also posted this on another user's talk page, where this discussion is ongoing. Bali (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bali, you admit being the same "Dev Bali" who (in your own words) "compiled earlier attempts to create one Sitelen Emoji" and "made an android keyboard that makes using the script like pinyin for Toki Pona". You have a clear conflict of interest (COI) regarding Sitelen Emoji and Toki Pona.

Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. Plase obey the following rules.ou:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about Sitelen Emoji and Toki Pona;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
  • avoid linking to your Sitelen Emoji website;
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Should Devbali02's {{Connected contributor}} template on Talk:Toki Pona be removed or not? I may be wrong, but I don't think they contributed anything to the current article. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_296&oldid=1142578022"