Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 279

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 275←Archive 277Archive 278Archive 279Archive 280Archive 281→Archive 285

RfC: "ProPublica" (October)

GENERALLY RELIABLE FOR ALL PURPOSES

There is a strong consensus that ProPublica is generally reliable for all purposes because of it has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it is widely cited by reliable sources, and it has received multiple Pulitzer Prizes.

Cunard (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Should ProPublica be listed as a generally reliable for news coverage? float Or something else?

I see the issue; Should ProPublica be listed as a generally reliable in its areas of expertise? float Or something else? X1\ (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

See propublica.org HTTPS links HTTP links and everywhere search in wp; and for earlier ProPublica.org discussion mentions see wp:RSN Archives: 132, 178, 213, 246, 251, 263, and 268. X1\ (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Updated lede sentence per feedback. X1\ (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Bolded the lede to make the questions standout. X1\ (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (ProPublica)

  • User:X1\ Please name specifically what the "areas of expertise" are. And please provide the RS you used to support that set of topics as being their areas of expertise, thanks. Note: No WP:OR of inferring from awards please, only state language and the source you had per WP:RS, please *not* one of its partners. And you can ignore the table. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • User:X1\ The topic is please name specifically the “areas of expertise”, with preference to articles on ProPublica from independent sources — so preferably not a partner. If you didn’t have an independent source mentioning such or were just using a phrase without RS then just say so. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • You just answered the question with “haven’t even started a search”, which I think means your input was from personal impression vice a source. I haven’t checked your list above, but yes independent source would indeed mean one not among the 47 (?) listed as their partner, and independent source input is preferred. A good source should not be used as RS on itself or its business partners. That would still leave thousands of sites for possible commentary on them ... London Times, Toronto Star, NY Post, FoxNews, The Independent, Globe and Mail ... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • User:X1\ You have not answered what “areas of expertise” are yet. Please list specifics, or presumption will be undefined = none stated = none. Your first phrasing here was obviously off, and I’m suspecting you’re unable to back anything up. WP:ONUS is on you to support your claim. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • User:X1\ Preferably use sources not partners to them, otherwise I think any written stable and available location may be mined for inputs. It would seem necessary for any rating to have some details of area(s) or nature framing the evaluation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • User:X1\ This subthread asked you to name your proposed “areas of expertise”. Turned out you had nothing specific in mind. Don’t make insinuations for questions similar to what you were making. The question was asked, you replied, it’s time to end the subthread. Markbassett (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I consider both "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise" and "generally reliable for news coverage" to be terms of art. Just "Generally reliable" would be pithier. 23:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
My input to first version of question Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Not news coverage - umm, they can't be a RS for news because they don't DO news of the day. They don't cover what is happening with Kurds or Brexit this week, Canadian election results, the woes of Man Utd, or natural disasters and such. They do investigative pieces from a progressive POV, with a data analysis approach. ProPublica is respectably known and usually has a factual data-driven content, but they do have a bias that they're open about, and do not present a balanced picture which they also are open about. It's going to be about telling you a way to see something Wrong from a progressive view point and nothing much else. Very well done, but limited in scope and POV. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • User:X1\ ??? No, it's no joke, don't see why you would think it was -- they really are not news coverage. Which I thought your later !vote-change edit indicated accepting. The being limited in scope and POV - well, again don't see how you could read that as a joke, it's basically said on their website and mission declarations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Markbassett: so you believe ProPublica can't be a RS for anything? X1\ (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • User:X1\ the question asked was if “generally reliable for news coverage”, and my answer was no, because they don’t do that. Still don’t see how you felt that was a joke. I see there’s now a revised question “generally reliable in its areas of expertise”, which I haven’t responded to. As to whether they’re a RS for anything, that isn’t the topic and I’d prefer to just deal with the revised topic if anything. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Determine case-by-case - self-declared not balanced coverage, and expertise subject to author Mostly that editorial control and qualifications only extends to in-house writers. The external submitters and co- or re-published external pieces may differ. Generally seems excellent quality in writing and methods, but selection of facts and direction to analysis is self-admitted and noted by critics. In other words, this isn't the whole story or necessarily a fair one, so conclusions are likely POV but reported data is likely reliable. Positive points for background of reporters usually being well qualified in the field, positive points for being explicit online in how they check and self-admitting their limitations. Minor negatives that with the analysis pieces I saw there seems no open access to raw data, and minor negative that I see no example of a retraction. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Markbassett provide RSs for selection of facts, not balanced coverage, isn't the whole story or necessarily a fair one, likely POV, and previous request for RSs of progressive POV, have a bias, and do not present a balanced picture. Note: No wp:OR, only provide RS, such as from the table with float. X1\ (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
1) User:X1\ ? I don't see any "previous request for RSs" so I'll start from here, and take your asking as giving me permission to ask the same in return. I presume you are asking about their internal reporters instead of noting that they have external submissions and collaborations of co- or republished material not done under the same editorial control. As I recall, I looked their self-declaration and then what others said about them, and did a couple Googles of them with some negative words.
2) Mission is "To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing"
3) Follow that with keeping bias out vs "investigative" - "First, it’s important to point out that ProPublica focuses mainly on investigative journalism, which is a particular genre that makes its reporting different than, say, political coverage. In most cases, investigative stories make an argument rather than just capture both sides of an issue. ... The stories often have a particular structure: Some person, government agency or other entity allegedly did something wrong and harmed others. Almost always, the wrongdoing is set against a standard — a law, ethical practice or norm. ... So on a certain level, some point of view is baked into investigative stories because, in many cases, reporters begin with a tip or data that suggests wrongdoing and then set out to determine if it occurred."
4) Externally, MediaBiasFatCheck rates them "Left-Center biased based on story selection that favors the left and factually High due to proper sourcing and evidence based reporting." It notes their collaborations are with 47 sources including reputable left leaning news organizations. Also it mentions "In general, their investigations look at corruptions and abuses of power. While ProPublica purports to be non-partisan, a review of their recent reports are aimed at right leaning politicians and their issues." This criticism was also mentioned (more colorfully) by The Washington Examiner ProPublica is the left's biggest muckraker you never heard of.
5) Example of criticism included their Surgeons Scorecard, as an example of Bad Data vs No Data. It was noted as setting off a firestorm, eviscerated in New England Journal of Medecine by Lisa Rosenbaum, and critiqued by The Rand Corp.
6) I think that'll do for a start - next I'll put a question back at you. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • User:X1\ “Mission” is always a goal, the thing one is stating one has an emotional prejudice and is biased about. Companies are biased about money in their field; Governments are biased about their nation, party, and power; Charities are biased on the topic they are pursuing. You don’t expect unbiased data from a Tobacco-area company or Government about cancer, and neither should one expect accuracy about drunk driving from MADD. An honest advocate presents *their* points and is open about having an agenda. One can only hope and check independent sources to see if there isn’t exaggeration or outright falsehoods. ProPublica seems open about their goals and methods, and the general constraints of the nature of the methods. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • User:X1\ A Tobbaco-area government would have a vested interest in and be subject to influences in their region. This is an inherent and natural bias. They would be possible as having expertise and being vocal on the topic, but it should be handled as a WP:BIASED RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • User:X1\ seems odder that you’re saying RS yet unwilling to give any consideration to ***their self-declaration of limits*** ??? Seems they would be RS for that. Usually self-claimed flaws are accepted and self-claimed expertise is checked. Markbassett (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • X1\, MBFC is not reliable in the slightest (as several discussions on this noticeboard have conclusively shown). The site is basically one random dude's opinions. It's not surprising in the slightest but still incredibly disappointing that a highly active editor in American politics, Markbassett, cites it as a reliable source while he attacks one of the greatest journalistic outfits as unreliable. Just further proof of why editing in American politics is so dysfunctional. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • User:X1\ - that’s odd, I seem able to get into the sites at least. Oh well, existence and nature of criticism description is at MediaBiasFactCheck and is easily findable by google at multiple other venues. That medical community is not entirely happy with scores nor method of scoring seems hardly EXCEPTIONAL anyway - just proceed from ‘major and noted medical publications objected to ProPublicas scorecard’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • User:X1\ why do you persist in not just proceed from ‘major and noted medical publications objected to ProPublica scorecard’. This seems a moot Ad hominem since the leads to partners and WE criticism are objective fact. If you want to google up someone else saying they have partners and critics, feel free. Simply accept that the medical community RS authority is relevant. Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • User:X1\ - ProPublica stated some limits about their own nature, WP:MEDHRS WP:MEDRS gave criticisms of their scorecard, and yes they have been criticized by others. Please give up the WP:IDHT and accept the obvious objective reality and move along, or at least give up on the apparently endless moot pings. And again, no area of expertise actually is specified so you might want to propose some, but that’s up to you. Over & out Markbassett (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @X1\: and @Snooganssnoogans:, you aren't going to convince @Markbassett: so why bludgeon the discussion? It's unlikely a consensus review would decide that ProPublica is not a generally RS. I don't think Markbassett's concerns were unfounded but bias in this case doesn't mean not generally reliable. X1\ and Snoog, the attacks on Mark for using MBFC are very flawed. I understand Snoog has a dislike of the site and it thus far does not meet our RS standards. That does not mean the site is wrong nor that it can not be used in good faith as a point of talk page discussion. It only means that our standards for sourcing article content are not met. The MBFC has been cited by NPR and several other news organizations as a subject matter expert rather than just a mention. Recently an MIT study used the source as the gold standard for testing a computer bias algorithm. Again, we shouldn't assume that just because a site doesn't meet Wikipedia's RS standards that the information is bad. The accusations of bad faith editing thrown at Mark for daring to use it are an example of the old three fingers pointing back at the accuser. I would suggest just dropping this discussion as it will make no difference in the outcome of this RfC. Springee (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Hello Springee. Thank you for joining the discussion. Please provide a link to the NPR link cite that attests to MBFC's credibility and several other news organizations as a subject matter expert to which you speak. To In what do they say MBFC is a subject matter expert? You need not provide a link to an MIT study used the source as the gold standard for testing a computer bias algorithm unless it more relevant than it first appears. X1\ (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Springee, your time is getting short to provide linked evidence of what you say. I'll assume your arguments aren't based in facts without links to the cites, and comments about attacks, very flawed, and three fingers pointing back at the accuser to be some kind of argumentum ad passiones. X1\ (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Markbassett, for comparison, which sources do you consider to be generally reliable? ProPublica has won a Pulitzer three out of the last four years, so I'd be interested to see what does meet your exacting standards. Do you place this above or below the New York Times? Or do you require AP / Reuters level reliability? Guy (help!) 22:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • User:JzG ProPublica stated some limits about their own nature and POV, and there are additional criticisms including what seems from WP:MEDHRS. These are items any due diligence evaluation should be considering if it is to produce a useful statement of their limits and suitable context (if any). And looking at Pulitzer.org, it seems they did not win 3 of the last 4 years. I see no Pulitzer for them in 2019 or 2018. The New York Daily News float and they won in 2017, primarily thru the work of NYDN reporter Sarah Ryley, about police and evictions in NYC. The Marshall Project (unrated) and they shared in 2016 for multiple pieces on law enforcement failures in rape cases. Anyway, so Pulitzer is interesting but not much help here. I’ll suggest this ‘got an award’ argument by association seems a poor support. That didn’t make NYDN an RS, nor even get other recipients consideration. And it doesn’t speak to WP:RS or WP:RSP topics, nor give much aid for the discussion to say RS on what or why, speak to NPOV, etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable in its areas of expertise When ProPublica does analysis, their number-crunching is reliable. But before they get to crunching numbers, ProPublica designs their studies to test what is generally a partisan hypothesis. They've done good work with the New Yorker in exposing ethical abuses surrounding commercial "storefront" stem cell therapy and their work's been deemed reliable by third party commenters such as medicinal chemist Derek Lowe in his "In The Pipeline" blog. They are useful and reliable on some stories, especially on the technical arguments surrounding contentious issues such as net neutrality (where they would be a good part of a balanced survey of informed opinion on such subjects). As with any openly partisan secondary source, editors ought to review the guidance in WP:BIASED before and while citing ProPublica. --loupgarous (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable for all purposes - Five Pulitzer Prizes in 12 years of operation. Widespread recognition and republication in other sources. Zero evidence of any problems with their reporting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable for all purposes - The arguments presented by MarkBassett are mind-blowingly bad. Just one reason of many why editing in American politics is dysfunctional. ProPublica is top-tier journalism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable I took a glance at their site and saw this[1] article about "the climate apocalypse to come", which gives me considerable pause. There is no concrete information about this "apocalypse" other than a statement that planned power blackouts are apparently a taste of it. I find the lack of a concrete definition concerning. They don't say what is going to happen or when. The fact that there are predictions of global warming and its consequences does not help them. If an "apocalypse" is coming, they should say what they mean by that. I am therefore going to have to say they are not reliable. Furthermore, their site is obviously WP:PARTISAN. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
At Wikipedia, where we strive to provide reliable information, we have an article about Global warming, and the Timeline of the far future states that in 1.3 billion years, Eukaryotic life will probably die out on Earth due to increased Solar luminosity. But we don't have an article on The coming climate apocalypse because it's a hyperbolic claim that lacks clear meaning.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Adoring nanny: did you even read the article you provided as evidence? The content of the article, you provided, is not a hyperbolic claim. And for the title: "Apocalypse" (ἀποκάλυψις) is a Greek word meaning "revelation", "an unveiling or unfolding of things not previously known and which could not be known apart from the unveiling".[1]; so by that meaning and by the meaning of something dreadful it fits. If your power has gone out &/or your home has burned down &/or you or your loved ones have been harmed or even killed; you might very well completely agree with the word choice in the title: i.e. still RS. X1\ (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I did. This is becoming uncivil. Please stop badgering me. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Adoring nanny, I've struck the only word I imagined you could find uncivil, and unbolded. I am disappointed to see you say you feel badgered. This is not about you, the wp:rsn thread is to determine the status of a source, preferably something resembling a consensus.
There ten eleven eighteen that fit float "generally reliable", one that says Generally seems excellent quality, and your's which is not only not float "generally unreliable" it is "Not reliable" (never reliable, so presumably closest to float "deprecate"). "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and your comment is an extreme outlier. You have shown no backing evidence and your argument appears to be lacking in merit; which leads me to believe you either have personal animosity toward the source and have been unable to be objective, or you are here to be disruptive. Both would imply you are "not here". X1\ (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Corrected to "eleven". X1\ (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary. X1\ (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Corrected to "eighteen". X1\ (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Adoring nanny, on Wikipedia, we're supposed to do more than glance at one headline when establishing the reliability of an entire source. The article itself is a well written opinion on the PG&E blackouts in California with a solid factual grounding. I suggest you change your !vote. Guy (help!) 22:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Please strike per WP:NPA. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack, it's ad hominem, yes but still nothing that needs be struck out. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Direct quote from WP:NPA -- "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream" Adoring nanny (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the unsigned comment directly above uses "affiliation" correctly. What the commenter quotes refers to: "Well, he's a member of the ACLU / NRA / New York Yankees, so he's wrong." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Found and added signage missing from above. X1\ (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
You are arguing that "betraying their own political bias" does not refer to a perceived affiliation. I believe it does, specifically perceived political affiliation. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
No. I am not saying "Don't believe him because he's a Democrat" or "Don't believe him because he's a Republican." It is absolutely factual to say that anyone who claims the neutral ProPublica is "obviously partisan" is commenting based on their own personal views and not on objective reality.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable per their Pulitzer Prize and otherwise incredible work. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable ProPublica is used extensively by news sources, it makes no sense to think PP itself to be just reliable in areas of expertise. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable. I’ll respond to Mark in that while ProPublica typically practices investigative reporting, they’re similar to the AP in that they break the news, and outlets pick it up after, as you’ve noted. Also: when picking up an article outide their bureau, it’s subject to the same editorial control and vetting. This is fairly standard, and as far as I know, they’ve never had to issue a major retraction. As the evaluations of the journalistic community’s generally say about ProPublica: “this is a journal for journalists”. It has one of the highest calibers of reputation in journalism internationally. Republication is part of their standard business model. Lastly, it has no professed bias, as you claim. The founders were once asked whether their political leanings would affect the content, and you can clearly see their response in the article. Bolstering that, their reputation is generally regarded as just supplying good journalism. It shouldn’t matter matter whether they’re a 24 hour news television channel, or a newspaper that simply repeats the investigative journalism of others. They’re about as reliable as you get. It’s not a source that regurgitates the news, but breaks it. None of your objections are rooted in any policy I’ve ever read. As far as WP:DUE, I had no real opinion before, burn simply commented on the sourcing and your mid characterization of it. But given the multiple secondary sources that have started pouring out since, it’s clearly worth a few lines. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Symmachus Auxiliarus "it has no professed bias, as you claim" is disproven in my later quotes near the top of them professing such. Note the nature or cautions for WP RS from statements on mission "the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform" and Balance "investigative stories make an argument rather than just capture both sides of an issue" and POV "some point of view is baked into investigative stories". This is simply the nature of their doing exposes in Progressive topics, it is what they forthrightly declare and raise money to do. Similar to muckraking is a part of the classical Progressive Era. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (ProPublica)

  • Specifically, the RfC was spawned by this comment, but I have seen other surprising comments during semi-random general browsing. I have generally thought of ProPublica as well-respected investigative journalism RS, and with impressive detail at that. But I don't generally follow them, and only recently for the first time looked at their homepage. Maybe I have only seen the best quality works, may be it is on an author by author basis? So I wanted other comments. If some consensus-ish discussion is reached here, then I can point other editors it for reference. X1\ (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's ridiculous. The nature of ProPublica's work is the journalism itself, not the publishing. Its reporting is highly visible not because people visit its website but because publications like The New York Times pick up the stories. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks like their concern is WP:DUE, not WP:RS (although they're somewhat related.) There are publications whose reputation is so weighty that when they give significant attention to a subject it is almost automatically WP:DUE; then there are ones that lack that automatic weight but which still clearly pass WP:RS. Without regard to the question of which one ProPublica falls into (it's usually a much harder and more context-sensitive question to answer than whether a publication passes WP:RS), I don't think they're suggesting it's unreliable, so there's not much for WP:RSN to say. That sort of question usually goes to WP:NPOVN (and generally doesn't get an easy answer, because, again, it's tricky.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, the concern was DUE -- whether ProPublica alone was enough WEIGHT to get an article into Presidency of Donald Trump. It was posted to the TALK within hours of going online. (I generally suggest NOT just doing a copy-paste of whatever was in the mornings feed, and a 48 hour waiting period for WEIGHT and more information to show up.) Since then a couple major venues seconded it, but of circa 25 major venues that's all so far. It also has some issues of being an esoteric statistic and being phrased as a comparison to Obama rather than an absolute metric or across longer time period, but mostly it just hasn't hit DUE for consideration yet. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
132 = a PBS Frontline investigation, coupled with ProPublica, a journal for journalists, published by people who came from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. = i.e. among high-quality RSs.
178 = ProPublica used as an RS.
213 = News organizations using a third-party fact checking service = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs.
246 = Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, which is a (high-quality) non-profit, investigative journalism outfit that prouces such investivative pieces but instead/in-addition to publishing on its own niche website, offers them to its affiliated partners that have a broader reach. See ProPublica, which follows the same model at a national scale. = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs.
251 = from other reliable sources such as Propublica or the Guardian = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs.
263 = ProPublica has an expressed interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing." = strong journalism quality, strong RS.
268 = ProPublica used as an RS.
X1\ (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • User:X1\ - again, nobody is saying they do not do some quality work, we're just saying by their own statements (such as this 'interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing."') they're whole goal and methods are crusading for Progressive topics by showing wrongdoing, so ... only going to show the numbers that advantage Progressive topics, and actually only show numbers in a way that makes things appear Wrong doing. They don't do balanced views or get responses or seek alternative explanations or show something going right even on the Progressive side, they just seek for the expose. For any external writer guest piece, I couldn't say it's the same quality of editorial control but would say it's still going to fit to the model of limited scope and POV. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • User:X1\ no I said that was spotlighting of wrong-doing for Progressive topics. (I.e. About Immigration, Health care, Education... Civil rights, Criminal justice, Environment, Gender issues... they typically don’t spotlight wrongdoing for other concerns.) Investigative pieces seeking wrongdoing on Progressive topics are a description of how they’re focused. I have seen at least one piece other than ‘spotlighting of wrong-doing’, but just ONE seems rare. Feel free to try offering contrary evidence that most pieces are not exposes, or that most topics are not Progressive (or say Liberal), but I think you’re speaking contrary to obvious facts and their own self-declarations there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Markbassett: why would you believe Immigration, Health care, Education... Civil rights, Criminal justice, Environment, Gender issues are "Progressive topics"? Donald Trump and his supporters would strongly disagree. X1\ (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Tbf that's not even evidence of bias, let alone unreliability. On the same note one could try to discredit e.g. a medical journal because it focuses on such a topic, and for the most part ignores a plethora of topics you haven't listed such as stamp collection and model trains. You could of course say that there exists a context of such sources focusing on this selection of topics being generally suspicious, but that would not be a statement of fact, but of politics. Daß Wölf 21:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
off-topic banter
  • X1\, you beat me to it! It's a sad day when even defenders of the GOP and Trump recognize that an 'interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing"' is a "Progressive topic", rather than a conservative topic. It didn't used to be this way. It used to be (back in Eisenhower's day) that the GOP prided itself on exposing corruption, rather than covering it up. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, exactly! I love how "fighting corruption" is somehow "Progressive." All investigative journalism fights corruption and criminality by shining a spotlight on it. Unless one is suggesting that allowing corruption is "Conservative," then one can't suggest that fighting corruption is "Progressive." --Tenebrae (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Goswiller 1987 p.3
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.

Online Music Magazin

Is Online Music Magazin a reliable source? I'm not seeing that it's been discussed. It does appear to have some sort of editorial control. The site is amateurish at best, but maybe that's not a red flag. There is no de.wiki article for it. --valereee (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello! magazine (again)

Is Hello! magazine (an English version of ¡Hola!) is a reliable source? which is kind of BLP for example of reliable source, unlike Daily Mail, Bild or others it could be considered unreliable for Wikipedia. --119.94.163.187 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust it in the least - David Gerard (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Concerns about papers from Annamalai University

200 papers with possible fabrication issues: https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2019/11/05/concerns-about-papers-from-annamalai-university/

Should we check those referenced in the articles? Nemo 20:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

​This is very concerning, and the linked discussion on the first paper contains dubious responses from the paper's authors. Is this problem restricted to Annamalai University's natural science papers, or does it also extend to its papers in other fields? — Newslinger talk 08:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Newslinger, it's indicative of an extreme publish or perish culture at this institution (and a few others addressed in later articles by Elisabeth Bik), so this report is probably only the beginning. Nemo 21:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Help in checking reliability

Hi, to my fellow editors I want to know about that this website whose link I am providing [[3]].Is the content in this Forbes profile fully trusted and reliable? Please! let me know about this. I want to update Dr. Shamsheer Vayalil old Forbes profile with the new one(whose link I have provided above). Thanks. (223.230.162.47 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC))

Looking at our Shamsheer Vayalil article, it looks like Forbes.com is ALREADY cited... so I am not sure what you are asking. Are you saying that the version linked to in the citation is outdated, and needs updating with a more recent version? Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am saying to update his old Forbes profile (represented as Reference 1) with new profile of 2019.The link which I provided above is of his new Forbes profile. Please, let me know about the reliability of that link and also help in restoring new link at the place of old one. I hope I'm clear enough to explain the matter.

Thanks. (223.230.162.47 (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC))

Is the Hong Kong Free Press a reliable source?

The Hong Kong Free Press is used throughout several sensitive articles related to the 2019 Hong Kong protests, including the main article, and it is the most-used source for the sensitive Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests article.

From what I see, the website seems to be crowdfunded (at least through 2016) and was created (by a political activist?) partially in response to the acquisition of South China Morning Post by Alibaba.

I don't want this question to turn into a protracted political debate about the current situation in Hong Kong or China. I just want to hear the community's ideas on the Hong Kong Free Press as a source and possible consensus on whether (or in which contexts) the Hong Kong Free Press is a reliable source. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This article published by Harvard has a generally favorable opinion on them, and again here. Outlets as varied as the New York Times and Al Jazeera seem to grant them credence as well. I would say, based on my research, they look to be reliable. --Jayron32 12:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm marginal on this. I mean again, Wikipedia shouldn't be using newspapers as RSes where it's possible to avoid it. I'd suggest we must be very careful to avoid insertion of opinion disguised as factual reporting from this source. But beyond that, it's newsmedia. Not one of the best. Not one of the worst. It's a middling quality publication from a category I am averse to. Do with this what you may. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Also, I don't see how the NYT and Al Jazeera articles say anything about HKFP; the NYT article gives a quote from the founder of HKFP and the Al Jazeera article just says that the HKFP reports on the protests. By the way, those two Harvard Nieman links are the same article; did you mean to link another one? — MarkH21 (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong, Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard, Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests, Talk:Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
In my view, it's reliable enough. It's manned by serious journalists and the team is hard out there covering the protests because it's an aspect of HK that the world is hungry for news on. True that it was formed to fill the gap expected from the buyout by Alibaba, but the SCMP still has a stronger and bigger team. At the time I write the SCMP is firmly "establishment" although it's not toeing "the party line" entirely. HKFP does have a liberal bias, but in that way it's not so different to the NYT or the Guardian. Probably not everything it publishes is worth taking into the article, so I'd suggest taking care to ensure that use of this respects due weight. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - Actually, HKFP has a close working relationship with the Apple Daily. It has more than just "liberal bias"; its news is often written to suit the (anti-government) activists' taste, i.e., what the activists claim maybe written as facts. I think the reliability of its contents would be questionable. STSC (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable Please take a look at HKFP and judge for yourself. For example the "Latest Hong Kong News" section as of Nov 16th, 2019 is called "Interview: Ex-head of legislature Jasper Tsang says the gov’t is weakest player of four in Hong Kong’s struggle" actually a purely opinion article. The article did not provide details about the interview, merely stating the interview took place "last month" - yet this is "Latest News" as at November 16, 2019 and given front page coverage. Obviously, none of the events spoken in the interview is "news" as of November 2019.

Finally... the biggest problem with this story is... the original story is actually reported here: https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/051119/hong-kong-le-gouvernement-devrait-accorder-une-forme-d-amnistie HKFP article appear to have been lifted from MediaPart's interview on Nov 5, 2019 without citation of the original source. This is very very bad journalism. Conclusion: Not reliable. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Reliable I've not come across anything that would suggest that they are unreliable. They only have a small team, so they cannot report on everything. They may choose to focus on the topics their readers are interested in (like every news organisation on the planet does). I've not seen or heard any suggestion that their reporting is fraudulent, dishonest, or anything else that would warrant an accusation of their being unreliable as a source of news. They do publish a lot of opinion pieces, but these are always labelled as such as far as I've seen, which, again, is something that a great number of newspapers do. As long as these articles are not confused with their actual news reporting, I don't see any problem with their having opinion pieces, or interviews with prominent figures (such as the interview with Jasper Tsang cited above). Kdm852 (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I think you need to differentiate between their own reporting and reporting that are sourced from AFP or others. when you assert that they are RS, you can only assess when they originate the report themselves. in which case the pool of articles you are assessing from becomes extremely limited, since they publish very few pieces of reported news. and when they did try to do their own report, they've done poorly, as stated above. you said you've found nothing wrong with the interview - well of course, because they did not do the interview. it was sourced. but they did not cite that fact. which is a problem. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

By comparison, this is a similar report on the story by RTHK. https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1492616-20191116.htm

The RTHK article was published 24 minutes before HKFP and properly referenced the original source is HKT. Both RTHK and HKFP are reporting on the same story and used the exact same interview of a woman. But RTHK properly attributes the source where as HKFP did not. That is bad.

Furthermore, HKFP reports that "Pro-democracy lawmakers issued a joint statement strongly condemning the incident, saying the incident violated the Basic Law. “The SAR government must immediately explain to Hong Kong residents as to whether it has, in accordance to article 14 of the garrison law, asked the central government to request the garrison in Hong Kong to assist in maintaining social order and conduct relief work,” they said. “If yes, the SAR government has continued to fall, escaping from resolving political problems by political means.”" The obvious problem here is, its unsourced. Lawmakers are public figures. They should be named. What HKFP is saying may still be true, but their journalism is just plain bad.

Here is another report on the same story :https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinas-pla-soldiers-seen-helping-clean-up-streets-after-hong-kong-protests You can see here its properly sourced from Reuters and Bloomberg. And the lawmaker making the complaint is identified as James To. And he was properly interviewed for comments and properly cited.

In summary, HKFP has poor journalistic practices (when they are doing the original reporting). So why are we citing from HKFP when much better sources are available with proper referencing and citations? These guys operate like a fly-by-night operation. There seem to be minimal checks on the news reporting that they do. They are primarily an outlet for opinion, not news. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Because in that instance, HKFP is reporting on a "joint statement", so I don't see the point of mentioning 20 names. RTHK likewise did not do so, so by your standard, they have poor journalistic practice as well. I don't think HKPF and RTHK cited anyone because both are doing original reporting. Judging reliability based on the quality of several articles is not ideal. I will say that they are reliable from their About page. The commendations from Reporters Without Borders alone is more than sufficient, and they have been commonly cited by other foreign news outlets, probably way more so than the likes of The Standard. Another key point is that we don't have a lot of Hong Kong-based English news outlets that are independent, and while it is not the best source out there, it makes WP:V significantly easier (because we will have to replace them with Chinese source which not everyone here can understand). OceanHok (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I disagree on the part that HKFP should be used as a result of them being an independent English source. HKFP is founded by British and is clearly pro-British. If you go to their twitter feeds right now, they even quote the British public figures... you don't seem them quoting any Chinese speakers in similar prominence. To give such prominence (or worship) to white foreigners, who don't even live in HK on the current subject, as if they are some authoritative voice, is borderline colonialism. It really draws the question if they are as independent as they claim to be. They are also sloppy, as I previous showed. Another example of sloppiness appeared in today's article where they accused police of using LRAD as a weapon to induce dizziness. They've now retracted that claim, but not before these rumors are spreading like wildfires online. This is a problem, because they simply don't have resources to check their own work, especially when the "facts" are going their way. To be a Reliable Source, they actually need to do their own fact check. You can't just blindly say "because someone said it, so we can print it". Thats not RS. A real RS actually has to vouch for the validity of the claim being asserted. And if someone is saying bullshit, the RS has a responsibility to actually point that out on their reports or interview the opposing side for a rebuttal. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable has an experienced staff and opinion pieces are carefully marked as such. Also this ip commenting here is an SPA regarding the Hong Kong protests and seems to be parroting the official Chinese view so their views should be treated with caution imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I haven't investigated HKFP, but I would like to note that the IP appears to be inadvertently presenting a case in support of reliability. The IP appears to citing parallel sources which confirm content that was published HKFP, while attempting to ding HKFP for details that don't appear in HKFP. Reliability is about whether we can rely on the content that is published in a source. That reliability does not diminish just because someone disagrees with the author's decision to leave out names or other unnecessary details. Alsee (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable. If you go and check out the team's profile, you can see they have a strong journalism profile, worked in many newspapers before. Article looks professional. IP claims are also not strong enough to prove that HKFP is not a reliable source. —Wefk423 (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable. Their 2018 Annual Report clearly shows that they are a well-run operation with paid, experienced staff writers, and they carried many scoops that are subsequently reported by many other outlets. Opinion pieces should of course be treated under WP:RSOPINION. feminist (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable. I have used HKFP as a source on Wikipedia for many years and have not observed any issues. The above allegations presented above are exceptionally weak – e.g. that the Jasper Tsang interview was "lifted" from a French outlet, when the author is clearly cited as a "guest contributor" on HKFP and given a byline, or that the interview is somehow an "opinion piece". Citobun (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable. While Hong Kong has struggled with censorship The Hong Kong Free Press is a notable exception[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcibiades979 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: When it comes to accusations of misconduct, there certainly seems to be some misleading wording from HKFP. For example: in this article about a police van speeding towards protesters, the HKFP writes that:

    When asked about police vehicles speeding into the crowd, Wong said it was necessary for officers to take such measures when facing attacks from protesters. “[Driving] fast doesn’t mean it is unsafe. For our police officers, they all well trained,” he said. “Be [confident in] the police. And please be [supportive] to the police”...

    But per HKFP’s own video of the interview (which I can’t link due to the WP blacklist), the response was “about the high speed of our police bus” in general (the “second part of the question”) rather than the specific incident (the ignored “first part” relating to the reporter’s video). The wording is misleading in suggesting that the response was condoning the particular incident of a van running into a crowd that the article focuses on, rather than defending the speed of driving used in protest control tactics generally.
    Slightly misleading wording against the police seems to be a trend in some of the misconduct allegation reports. — MarkH21 (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable. If these are the most “misleading” wordings people can find Hong Kong Free Press must be one of of the most reliable sources in East Asia... As always opinion pieces should be given much less weight than news pieces but thats true of all papers. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lee, Francis L.F.; Lin, Angel M.Y. (May 2006). "Newspaper editorial discourse and the politics of self-censorship in Hong Kong". Discourse and Society. 17 (3): 331–358.

The International Indian

Hi, I want to know that "The International Indian" magazine's content are reliable or not. I couldn't find it's name at reliable sources list. Please! do comment. Thanks. (223.230.162.47 (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC))

On WP, the resulting question is often "reliable for what?" Context matters. Anyway, based on the little I find at [4], I wouldn't be opposed to using it for basic facts. More complicated stuff is more complicated. And then there's WP:DUE etc. Be WP:BOLD and see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Wire

The Daily Wire has been discussed once that I could easily find here but there were a couple saying RS, ~4 saying use with caution/partisan but reliable, and ~6 saying avoid, so no real consensus. Can we update? --valereee (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, avoid. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The Daily Wire is NOT a news reporting source... it is a news analysis, commentary and opinion source. In that context, it can be seen as a reliable PRIMARY source. In other words, it is reliable for sourcing the analysis, commentary and opinions expressed by its various commentators. Now, whether those opinions and analysis are noteworthy will depend on the topic. That is a DUE WEIGHT issue not a reliability issue. But when mentioning what someone writing for the Daily Wire says, the Wire itself is the MOST reliable source possible for that material. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Note that there's two important caveats. Citations like that are WP:ABOUTSELF, ie. we can cite someone for their own opinions regardless of the reliability of the source; but first, that's only usable on articles or in sections about that person - in places where that author is directly the subject of the topic. We cannot drop rando opinions from the Daily Wire into other articles just because an editor thinks that opinion is relevant, since WP:RSOPINION still requires a basic level of reliability from the source - ie. if we're going to cite someone's opinion on our article for climate change, we need a source that will do basic fact-checking to ensure they don't say anything with glaringly inaccurate assumptions in it and that their credentials will be as described. The Daily Wire doesn't provide that. Even when the writer is directly relevant, we also cannot use such cites for statements about other people, even on their own page, and would have to be cautious about shocking or exceptional things. "I think taxes are too high", coming from an American conservative commentator, could obviously be cited to their statements even in an article on an otherwise low-reliability publication. Them saying "I think climate change is bunk!" could maybe be cited there, if it's in-line with their other statements, on their article to establish their views (never on a general article about climate change, only when the author is the direct focus of the text), but for that we'd need to use some caution because saying that they hold a fringe view is potentially WP:BLP-sensitive if there's any reason to doubt it at all. Them saying "Senator Joe is a corrupt asshole who is on the take" (or making any other statements at all about a living person) could not be cited to their own statements in the Daily Wire under any circumstances, because it's a statement about a third party. (None of this has to do with the Daily Wire's reliability, though; it would be equally true if they posted it on their blog or on a verified Twitter account.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This does not look like "commentary", nor like it's "reliable".[5][6] François Robere (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
​It's probably not a good idea to take Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) at face value, since it's a self-published source that we consider generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 11:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
So it is ok for BLP issues? I doubt it. 19:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
It isn't, but that's because of reliability and not bias, which are separate issues. (Separate-ish, I suppose, since bias can sometimes lead to unreliability. But even if we took the Media Bias / Fact Check statement at face value it wouldn't be enough on its own. The problem is that they publish misleading or inaccurate things and push fringe opinions, not why they do those things.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I would absolutely not treat The Daily Wire as generally reliable, if for no other reason that its association with shrill Ben Shapiro of Breitbart fame. On top of that, the site is very opinion oriented. It's so-called news tends to be deeply intermingled with its opinion content.[7][8][9]. How often does one see a reputable source cite something in The Daily Wire? Not often. - MrX 🖋 22:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Jelena Mrgic-Radojcic "Donji Kraji, Krajina srednjovekovne Bosne"

Also, this was negatively evaluated by Mladen Ančić [1][2] --Čeha (razgovor) 19:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.unizd.hr/Portals/3/CV_eng/CV_eng_Mladen_Ančić.pdf
  2. ^ https://hrcak.srce.hr/18579#page=96-100

Grace's Guide to British Industrial History

Can I regard the biography of William Fawcett at "Grace's Guide to British Industrial History" as a reliable source for William Fawcett? That page cites sources, but I do not have access to all of those sources. The site is edited by volunteers, but there is an editor-in-chief who oversees contributions "to insure the content is as accurate as possible and properly attributed to the original sources".[1] - Donald Albury 16:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes. Although Grace's Guide do not court publicity (to say the least) the output is robust and the sourcing is visible. Metadata on their scanning could be better, and easier to cross reference. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Grace's Guide". Grace's Guide to British Industrial History. Retrieved 3 December 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

People's Daily and Qiushi as opinion pieces and non CoI BLP realiable sources

The two are represented for major state-run media. I believed that they are unrealiable when it comes to report news which has high connection to Chinese state. Sometimes, Chinese state-run media may contain information about praised persons. Could we used them as opinion pieces and non CoI (non controversial) BLP realiable sources? (such as Chinese Internet personalities)Mariogoods (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Is the BBC unreliable for Brexit? I don't like newsmedia and am not pushing for People's Daily to be used more but I think Wikipedia is showing an inappropriate bias by separating out "enemy state" state-owned media from "friend-state" state-owned media. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure or familiar with these sources, but there is a difference between state-owned media and state-run media, and the OPs objection is not the financial backing of the organization, but rather the involvement of the machinery of state with the editorial running of the organization. The BBC is extensively insulated from the British state and the British state has no editorial control over it, despite providing it with financial backing. That may or may not be true for the sources listed above, but the OPs objection isn't who signs the checks, but who checks the news before it goes out... --Jayron32 20:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Simonm223, There are certainly many complaints about the BBC's Brexit coverage, but the BBC is generally reckoned to be one of the most reliable news sources in the world. Guy (help!) 13:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
It's naive to assume that liberal state owned media is not state run. Or that its bias is any less egregious. We should not be using news media as a source; but Chinese news media is not less reliable than British or Canadian news media. It's all unreliable, recentist POV garbage. Simonm223 (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
So only capitalist, private industry can be trusted to provide reliable sources? Based on what you wrote here, nothing you write going forward should be trusted. Everything you write should be scrutinized for bias and WP:POV. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Simonm223, the Chinese government controls what their media say. The British government does not control what the BBC says. The Chinese government is totalitarian. The British government is not. China is a one-party state, the UK is not, and government changes hands regularly.
No, the BBC is not "state-run". Guy (help!) 17:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not familiar with too what extent BBC is affected by the state and how do you categorize sources with different levels of reliability on enwp. It is widely acknowledged that People's Daily is clearly biasing on politics reports related to the interests of CCP and its government. Like all other state-backed media in China, People's Daily think itself as the "mouthpiece" of CPP unabashedly. But it does not mean it is not reliable at all or should be thought to be only "opinion pieces" (actually a new concept to me, no corresponding word in Chinese). The general rule we follow in zhwp is: treating it as an RS for items is not highly controversial & politics-related; using it much more carefully otherwise and attempting to catch more sources with different opinions/stands for balance.
FYI, "Journalism must thoroughly adhere to the principle of correctly directing public opinions. Newspapers, journals, and radio and television stations of the party at all levels should be guided, and urban newspapers and magazines should also follow the principle. The party’s press and public opinion work adheres to the principle of party spirit, and the most fundamental thing is to uphold the party’s leadership over the work of public opinion. The media hosted by the party and the government is the propaganda position of the party and the government, and must be surnamed the party." (talks by CCP leader from here; Google translated with slightly manual fix) So it is reasonable to assume the reliability of such kinds of media on politics-related issues is below average. --虹易 (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Chinese state media is general unreliable, especially when it comes to domestic reporting. The difference between Chinese state media and an outfit like the BBC is that the BBC has editorial and institutional independence, Chinese state endue does not. Chinese state media is in fact less reliable than most other state media, even the media of some other autocratic countries like Qatar. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • People's Daily, Qiushi, and other Chinese state-controlled media outlets are generally reliable, though biased, sources. Commenters such as Horse Eye Jack seem to be confusing WP:Reliable with WP:Biased. I studied East Asian History at an American university and read extensively on Chinese history, and almost all historians, Western and Chinese alike, rely heavily on official Chinese press. For example, The Cambridge History of China, considered the most complete and authoritative history of China published in English, includes a guide on Chinese official sources. According to its authors, which include the most famous names in Western Sinology, "The Chinese press provides the staple for research on China: books, journals, and newspapers", and they go on to guide the readers on how to locate essential sources such as People's Daily and Red Flag (the predecessor of Qiushi) in Western libraries. Of course, these sources are obviously biased and need to be used with caution, and facts (such as biographical details, meetings, appointments, awards, etc) need to be separated from opinions or propaganda (such as interpretations of facts), the latter requiring attribution per WP:Biased. But if we were to treat government-affiliated sources as unreliable, we might as well quit writing about China altogether, as most topics completely lack non-Chinese sources. -Zanhe (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Well when we ask ourselves the question "Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?” about Chinese state and CCP media the answer is “no.” At the very least they must be attributed in a way that a state media organization with actual editorial independence (BBC, DW, etc) don't have to be. One problem we run into academically and on wikipedia is the fact that there isn't a single media organization in Mainland China which has “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” I agree that this makes our lives very hard when it comes to covering China, but that doesn't mean we are going to throw out the rules and view unreliable sources as reliable simply because there are no alternatives. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
"There isn't a single media organization in Mainland China which has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - that's clearly your personal opinion. I've read numerous academic books on China (including the entire series of The Cambridge History of China) and have never seen any scholar say that. On the contrary, they use Chinese press as the basis for their research (see citation above). It's clear that Chinese media are censored on sensitive topics and biased in their interpretations of facts, but the vast majority of Chinese topics are not politically sensitive (I've written articles for more than 1,000 of them) and the facts they do choose to publish are generally reliable. -Zanhe (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
They use it as the basis for their research because its all that exists... If you want to study post-1949 China you're going to need to use PRC government documents and publications by definition. They know full well that its not reliable, trustworthy, or independent. Per WP:NOTJOURNAL we cant assume that the general reader knows that Mainland Chinese sources are unreliable, something that in the context of a Chinese studies journal all readers would know. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Note where China falls in the Press Freedom Index... It is the fourth worst country on earth in terms of press freedom. If we dont treat Turkmen, North Korean, or Eritrean media as reliable why in the world would we treat Chinese media as reliable? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Again you're misunderstanding WP:Biased and substituting your personal opinion for academic practice. Press freedom has a lot to do with bias (censorship of dissenting opinions and inconvenient facts), but little to do with reliability (preventing false information): the freest media source is social media, which is also the least reliable. And what does WP:NOTJOURNAL have to do with this discussion? It's all about how to write content, not how to interpret sources. -Zanhe (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Press freedom has a lot to do with the dissemination of false and misleading information... While the Chinese state may have immense power to stop the dissemination of false and misleading information its kind of a moot point when they are themselves the prime purveyor of that false and misleading information. My own personal opinion is irrelevant here. Your point about social media being the freest media confuses me, just like the traditional media social media is as free as the country it operates in/is based in. Are you unaware that in many countries social media is heavily censored and policed? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
That's a classical red herring. When I mention social media as the freest form of media, I'm obviously talking about uncensored social media in the West. -Zanhe (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If you insist on invoking WP:Biased then why ignore the line that so clearly states "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should 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.” Being biased/opinionated is not a get out of jail free card from the normal reliability checks. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
This mainly applies to commercial sources. Governments are presumed to exercise editorial control and fact checking (censorship is an extreme form of editorial control). -Zanhe (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Ummmmmm... No... Censorship does not count as editorial control. That is an extraordinary claim and as such needs rather extraordinary support. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
As for what mainstream China Studies scholars think look no further than the piece Ian Easton published in the Taipei Times *today*[10]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Your citation of a clearly biased opinion piece betrays your lack of knowledge in the field. Mainstream scholars of modern China are professors at major universities like John Fairbank, Roderick MacFarquhar, Frederick Teiwes, Allen S. Whiting, Rana Mitter, M. Taylor Fravel, and so on, not a junior researcher (who doesn't even have a Ph.D.) named Ian Easton at a minor think tank. -Zanhe (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
And you can’t provide citations from them because? At the very least I doubt any of them published a piece in a WP:RS *today* (also its an editorial not an non-editorial opinion piece, there is a massive difference). You also have to engage the other two points, you’re deflecting from the meat of the issue. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a total tangent but if you want to talk about betraying a lack of knowledge in the field of China Studies you appear to be under the impression that the Project 2049 Institute is a minor think tank... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Duh, I provided citations from them at the very beginning. John Fairbank and Roderick MacFarquhar are the chief editors of The Cambridge History of China Volumes 14 and 15: history of the PRC (Allen S. Whiting was one of the authors). They're the ones who wrote the guide on how to locate and use Chinese media sources. -Zanhe (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
All three of those men are dead, Fairbank since 1991. You’re going to have to do better than that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
This is not a good faith argument. Renowned scholars, even after they die, are still far more reliable than living political hacks working for agenda-driven think tanks. BTW, Frederick Teiwes, Rana Mitter, Larry Wortzel, M. Taylor Fravel, etc. are alive and well, and they cite plenty of Chinese press, as do practically all sinologists. -Zanhe (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The question is not whether they use/cite the Chinese press, the question is whether they say that the Chinese press is reliable, has editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and is independent of the Chinese Government and CCP. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

World and Asian records sites as RS

Coming here from Longevity myths where I found "World Record Academy" as a source[11], I've now found Atithi Gautam K. C which uses not only WRAa different website linked to the first but World Records India,[1] Asia books of Record[2] and World Amazing Records as the youngest professional singer in the world.[3]

Are any of these reliable sources? They're used in a number of articles. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

World Amazing records about page does not inspire trust. The article itself states she hasn't been recognised officially yet, which contradicts the headline. Neither do the other articles- The worlds shortest man reports that a ten year old boy is too young to be in the Guinness book of records..The links on the sidebars seem to just direct to other sites for records-nothing is dated past 2011. Curdle (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ World Records India. "World's Youngest Singer Athiti Gautam K.C". World Records India.
  2. ^ Asia Books of Record (2012-11-09). "YOUNGEST SINGER". asiabooksofrecord.com.
  3. ^ World Amazing Records (2010-07-19). "World's youngest singer Nepalese girl Atithi K.C set Guinness World Record". World Amazing Records. Retrieved July 19, 2010.

News of the World

This paper was legendary in its day as a scandal sheet with an unusually loose association with both truth and journalistic ethics. I propose to tag and then remove the couple of hundred links we have to this site. Guy (help!) 10:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not technically the same as The Sun, but along those lines. It was famously disreputable for decades. Even as it had occasional genuine news scoops. Has it the same useful pretty-reliable status as the Sun and Daily Mail do for facts of sports coverage? (Though never material about the sportspeople.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Because of who is doing this, and how they're proposing to do this. I would support a TBAN against them doing anything similar, in thr future.
The NotW is trash. It is remarkable that we even have such links used as references. There is a possibility of some in a self-referential context being valid, but that's a separate situation.
But, all that said, I do not want (in the strongest possible terms) Guy to do another of these crusade runs. Particularly one expressed as ""remove the couple of hundred links we have", i.e. to remove all of them, and with no attempt at per-use review. We've seen this before, and these runs have not been a good thing. I raised the Daily Mail run just a week ago Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Daily_Mail_bulk_removals_(again). Despite the fact we have RfCs in place that we will not remove the DM automatically like this. We've also had the castles run, where Guy used WP:FAIT to remove a source he had no understanding of, then it was opposed on the grounds that the author of the site was being overly modest and in fact it ought to be regarded as WP:RS, because of the author's standing in that field. But by then, the damage was done.
Guy should not be making bulk runs like this. They are badly done (they leave stranded citations, and they remove RS sources to other sites, amongst other problems). They are also blanket runs, removing everything, with no attempt made at any per-use editorial judgement. For those two reasons, this is a bad idea.
It's also disappointing that Guy has taken the proposition "The NotW is not a fit source" and established a track record for his problem removals so bad that it's now a questionable idea that he should be doing something, when that's so evidently an overall good idea. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
WTF? A topic ban for unsuspecting the NOW (a news paper closed down for wrong doing) is not an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe try reading the paragraph above? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Then I suggest you take it to ANI and not here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I concur that if you're claiming that this is intrinsically wrong, you need ANI or similar - if you think you have a case, you need to make it. You're not even discussing the paper, just ranting about another editor you don't like - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I will add you oppose based on arguments, not who makes them, that validates the oppose.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's intrinsically wrong - and if I did, this would be the place to discuss that.
My point is that Guy has used this crusade tactic before, and has done so badly and with damaging effects afterwards. He has zero interest in cleaning up any such mess, it's just his edits, therefore they're self-justifying on that basis alone.
Should we make some effort to clean up and remove NotW sources? Probably.
Is Guy the person to do so? Absolutely not. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
If you think Guy should be topic banned from removal of sources, the correct venue to bring that up is WP:ANI. Such a discussion should not happen here. Gather some diffs and build your evidence at WP:ANI and the discussion can happen there. --Jayron32 17:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
No, you're explicitly not discussing the quality of the source, you're making an extended personal attack on another editor. If you think you have a case to make - that keeping known-untrustable sources is good actually, and Guy should be sanctioned for removing the known-untrustable sources - you need to bother making it convincingly. So far you're WP:1AM - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is why I see Guy as not being a suitable editor to do this type of bulk removal: Trump–Ukraine scandal just this evening:
Also WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WoodElf and RS
This is a highly contentious current politics article. Deservedly it's subject to a 1RR restriction. A restriction which Guy clearly has no intention of following.
Secondly, he's acting here with a possibly laudable intention, although unsupported by WP policy and against WP:RS/P. However his actions are careless and are actually doing the opposite of it. Rather than "removing a Fox source added by WoodElf", WoodElf hadn't added this, Guy hadn't removed it, and what Guy's actually done is to remove two RS (BBC & Reuters). The Fox source is simply beng moved from place to place, by both of them.
Finally, when challenged and eventually accepting that his edits have been doing the opposite of what he both claimed and presumably thought, his response is "it had already reached the point where unpicking it is not easy," and a refusal to revert. Yet again: he does the wrong thing, multiple other editors challenge this, and his only reponse is a refusal to fix what he has created.
Any other editor (or a non-admin) would be looking at blocks for this attitude - just the 2RR would be enough. Look at the treatment of WoodElf at ANI, with no question of Guy's actions.
And under all of it, we have no sanction or deprecation against Fox News. Maybe we ought to (I'd support it, especially on US politics), but until such time as we do, there's no basis to act as if we do.
Every time I see one of these bulk blanking runs, we get the same or similar results. Being in such a hurry to demonstrate how 'right' they are over everyone else, that they're making errors all over, but then never either accepting this, or fixing it afterwards. That's why, even for good reasons like cleaning up NotW, Guy should not be the person doing this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support deprecating the source and removing any inappropriate uses of it. So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness (there would be places where its use would be necessary; for example when used to cite a direct quote, etc.) however, wherever it is being used as an inline cite for anything said in Wikipedia's voice should be removed with extreme prejudice. --Jayron32 14:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What does "deprecate" mean? It's a word I use a lot. But what does it mean in the WP content context? We seem to have never agreed this, and it's significant.
When "deprecate" is used in the context of the definition of formal standards, then it almost always means "We don't like this, we don't want to create any more of it, but we recognise that there's no way to make its existence go away immediately." So it begins by not creating any more instances of it. But it doesn't begin with a steamroller to remove all existing instances, and to leave gaps behind instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Deprecate means to express disapproval of and to withdraw official support for or discourage the use of/to seek to avert. I hope that helps. Also, sometimes a citation needed tag is better than using a bad source. The use of a bad source would imply that no one needs to find something. A CN tag alerts readers to research for a source. With sources of the lowest possible quality (that is, sources known to actively make things up rather than just be of unknown reliability), it is frequently better to simply remove them. As I noted, however, I have not advocated for 'remove all existing instances". I have listed places where it would be useful to retain the source in question, however we should simply not use the source to speak in Wikipedia's voice because it really is that bad. Other uses, where we make it clear we are directly quoting and attributing it to the source, may be useful. I will point out that when I said "So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness" what I had actually meant was "So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness". I hope that also clarifies it, since you seem to have misunderstood me there. --Jayron32 17:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • So you're using it with the meaning of "express disapproval of"? I can support that. But that's not the same as bulk, unchecked removal of them throughout.
Also there is a difference between avert and revert: I have no problem averting these, i.e. to avoid the creation of any more. But again, that's not the same thing as a bulk removal of them.
Rather than removal and {{citation needed}}, we also have a tag {{better source needed}}. It's intended for precisely this situation, nor does it imply the prior removal of the existing source. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, we're going to have to continue to disagree there. I agree that in many cases, the "better source needed" tag is appropriate; however not in all cases, and this particular source presents one where removing it is a better option. That isn't always true, or even usually true, but it is sometimes true, and this is one of those times, when I would rather have no source than this one. Secondly, and I'm going to repeat this a third time because you have missed it the other two times, I have not said that we should do a "bulk removal". I have said, and I quote again, "So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness." I would be rather opposed to any sort of blind removal of sources just on the name; however where the source is being used to cite text in Wikipedia's own voice rather than to cite a direct quote with in-text attribution (for example, in an article where its unreliability is being directly addressed, and where direct quotes are needed to establish its wrongness), then we should of course not remove those citations. I could also probably, if given enough time, come up with other times we wouldn't remove it. So no, we should not remove them in a "bulk" manner, but we should still use the ones that are being used inappropriately, which would be anywhere the source is being used as an inline cite for text in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 20:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Jayron32, I remove deprecated unreliable sources when they are redundant to other, more reliable ones. Otherwise I tag the cite as needing a better source.
I remove predatory open access journals wherever I find them.
David Gerard also does some of this, but very few of us do, so without this effort, sources we all agree are worthless remain in Wikipedia untouched. Guy (help!) 09:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes - I've been systematically removing a lot of deprecated sources lately, on the basis that deprecated sources have been deprecated because we literally cannot trust them not to be lying nonsense, and they are actually worse than having nothing. News of the World is definitely that quality of source, by the way - there is no reasonable justification for using it as a source for anything, except maybe sporting facts, and then only in desperation. If Andy is opposed to this, he needs to make his case that keeping known-untrustworthy sources is good actually, and get the community to concur. "Deprecated" means "can't be trusted for anything." They absolutely should be removed, as should substantial claims cited only to them - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, I am not removing and leaving {{cn}}, I am tagging as needing a better source unless the source is redundant (i.e. one of two or more sources for the same text) in which case I am removing it altogether and leaving the other sources. So basically you're telling me I should be doing exactly what I am doing, but at the same time saying I should be topic banned for doing it. Guy (help!) 09:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • So your announcement at the top here, I propose to tag and then remove the couple of hundred links was false?
The trouble is that I don't believe your new claim. I've never seen you doing that before. I've not seen you use {{better source needed}}, but I've seen you remove citations altogether a lot, even when that blanket removal was being challenged here. As to (i.e. one of two or more sources for the same text) I've also seen you remove all of the citations in such a group, even when some were RS. And of course, when you create technical errors like that, even if you grudgingly admit them later, then you're never the one doing the cleanup work afterwards.
As already stated (and mis-read by nearly everyone in this thread) I'm not looking to preserve use of the NotW. But, given your demonstrated track record on similar actions, I don't trust your competence to do so. You seem confused as to whether you're immediately removing them or not. You keep using "deprecated", yet there is no definition of this term available, in the way in which you or WP are using it, so just what does that mean? (see the multiple definitions given above). You have taken the WP:DAILYMAIL RfC which did not support bulk removal and then cited them to justify exactly such a bulk removal. Yes, I see your actions as unsupported and inappropriate, and, more surprisingly, they even fail WP:COMPETENCE because your collateral damage keeps affecting non-targets as well. But you're an admin, so you're immune at ANI and there's no point wasting my time there. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
This appears to be an admission that you literally don't have a case - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear: deprecate, remove, scour. NotW has always been a worse-than-useless source that is absolutely unsuitable for Wikipedia. I might make an exception for sporting facts if there's no other source - as with the Sun and Daily Mail - but that's about it - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • So are there further substantive non-derailing opinions on News Of The World? - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes and if it continues it should be take to ANI as disruption.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
And if you try your "Anyone who disagrees with me is being disruptive" scare tactic any further, guess where you're going? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Have you considered that this discussion perfectly fits the description at WP:1AM? Please cut it with the personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate (personally I'd be closer to "kill with fire" but that's a disruptive opinion) I have removed all remaining citations to the News of the World on BLPs, so there are now none left. I still have plans to fix the 123 remaining BLPs that are citing The Sun. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to deprecating the source. Nor with how Guy has indicated they plan to handle it like adding a 'better source needed' tag. I would oppose replacing the source with a 'citation needed' tag as some have suggested for Daily Mail and I think here. As has been indicated, this can actually make things worse, as the Daily Mail may have details (often at least a time frame) which can make finding other sources easier. It would be better to simply remove the info as uncited which is technically justified for any uncited content. That said, it's IMO an open question about whether info sourced to a deprecated source should be treated exactly the same as uncited content. And in addition, although removing uncited content is justified, mass removing uncited content can be disruptive in some cases. (Although it's complicated. If someone comes a cross a BLP largely uncited, it will be difficult to find fault with an editor who pares it down to a bare minimum.) If editors are concerned that the 'better source needed' tag doesn't adequately convey the problem, we should consider some new tag to do so rather than causing problems for other editors by removing the info which may be needed to find another source. (I mean this isn't quite as bad as those who think it's okay to remove a dead bare URL, but still....) In addition, we can also consider delinking the source (making it so it's only text) if people feel that is necessary to help protect readers. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    Thinking about it more, technically we could probably also do something so the details are hidden to the reader but are still there. Ultimately there are surely many solutions if editors are concerned about the possible harm from readers reading the deprecated source which don't require us removing the source and replacing it with a citation needed tag potentially causing problems for anyone wanting to find a source. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    It's arguably a source whose claims can literally not be trusted, and such claims should be removed - particularly in BLPs. Though we'd need a proper RFC, which this isn't - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    To be clear, my concern here was with the suggestions that instead of removing the content, we should remove the source and replace it with a fact tag. I'm not necessarily opposed to removing the content, although as I implied and elabourated in more detail below, the problem with removing content is while it's technical justified for any specific content, outside of BLPs, mass removing content across a whole host of articles simply because it's unsourced tends to be seen as disruptive. Nil Einne (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement to have information in an article (and indeed a policy that explicitly says we should not be a random collection if information). It is down to those who want to retain information to find better sources, it is not down to us to keep poorly sourced (or unsourced) information.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Mostly agreed although I'm not sure if there's any likelihood of anyone disagreeing anyway. But the problem is, this doesn't change the fact that mass removing uncited info tends to be seen as disruptive, and will often lead to a block. And in this case, it's questionable if the info should be treated exactly the same as uncited. In other words, while removing any single instance of info cited to NoTW will probably be okay, removing it in one thousands instances may be a problem. BLP is one area you will probably be fine, but in other areas, I'd urge caution. (Don't believe me, go to Category:All articles with unsourced statements. Visit every article and remove any info with a citation needed tag. Do the same for the next page. See how long you last before you're blocked. For that matter, you'll probably find in many of those articles it's not the the tag part which appears uncited but a lot of it. If you want to really test the waters, try removing all the content that appears uncited.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: News of the World

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a near-unanimous consensus that News of the World should be deprecated for all practical purposes. Since some editors still consider the source to be usable for film reviews, I'll make a note of that at WP:RSPS. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Should News of the World be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail (RSP entry), with an edit filter put in place to warn editors attempting to use News of the World as a source? — Newslinger talk 00:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (News of the World)

  • Yes, but "deprecation" should mean what the word means, and what WP:DEPS says it means. It doesn't begin with, "tag and then remove the couple of hundred links we have". Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate, at least from 2000 onwards. Was on the fence since although I find any UK tabloid dodgy, so far we have not come to an agreement that they should all be deprecated. And I wasn't particularly aware of details showing that this was one particularly known for just making up stuff etc like the Daily Mail. So was waiting to see what others provided. But upon further consideration, I feel we cannot trust any source with as terrible ethics as they had with the hacking and use of corrupt police. Technically their terrible ethics seemed to be in trying to uncover info, but if you're willing engage in such practices, who knows what on earth else you're doing? (The 'kidnap plot' is possibly one example of this.) I'd note that my support should explicitly not be interpreted as supporting replacing all NotW links with 'citation needed' tags. And any mass removal of content should abide by the same norms for any mass removal of content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate, if we must. I honestly didn't think we needed to bring this particular shrubbery as we're talking about a couple of hundred articles and the paper is defunct so no new ones are likely to be added. But since we're here: Mazher Mahmood was convicted and jailed; NoW was front and centre in the News International phone hacking scandal; their bribes to police were notorious, leading to at least one suicide; their anti-paedophile witch hunt led to a paediatrician and some rando who happened to have a neck brace being harassed. The Jam even wrote a satirical song about how bad they were. NoW was unreliable for the entire time it was online, IMO, and probably always. It was always a scandal sheet. Guy (help!) 09:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate Its a damn rag that cannot be trusted, and yes I think it means removes links to it, if its important then someone else would have mentioned it, we are not a catalog if random information. It is at least as unreliable as the Daily Myth, and unlike the DM had to be closed down due to its shoddy journalistic practices. They made stuff up [[12]], lied to Police [13]], and continued to lie about what they had been up to [[14]]. Nothing they ever said can be trusted.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate and purge - it's as deeply fundamentally untrustworthy as The Sun, which is also deprecated, and for the same reasons. This is even given NotW's occasional genuine journalistic wins. NotW links should be presumed literally worse than useless for reliable encyclopedic citation - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Depracate Red tops. Horrible things. Fit only for the nail on the outhouse door. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 10:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate as a news source, don't deprecate as a source for quoted commentary. Given its dominance of the UK market—at one point it was the biggest-selling English-language newspaper in the entire world—they were disproportionately influential, and I'd consider it completely legitimate to (e.g.) quote from a NotW film review in the 'reception' section of the article on the film. ‑ Iridescent 10:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate as noted above. Individual cases of its use can be discussed individually, but we should discourage its general use and remove it where it does not have specific consensus. Presumption that the source is illegitimate unless consensus establishes otherwise for a specific use. --Jayron32 12:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose The selective banning of various media makes Wikipedia look partisan. Existing poolicies such as REDFLAG already prevent the misuse of stories published in NOW and all other publiations. TFD (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
      • The NOTW wasn't "media" in the usual sense of the term, though, it was a mix of fabrications, pornography, and intentionally misleading commentary, laced with just enough genuine news to allow it to continue calling itself a 'newspaper'. (Although it's no longer with us, you can still get a taste of it at its spiritual heir the Sunday Sport.) Except on those occasions where we explicitly want to tell our readers specifically what the NOTW said, there are no circumstances when it will ever be a reliable source since any genuine story will have also been reported elsewhere in genuinely reliable sources. We should be treating the NOTW in exactly the same way we currently treat Victorian penny dreadfuls or Soviet propaganda; completely legitimate to use as a primary source when the reaction to something they published is itself the article topic, but never as a legitimate secondary source. ‑ Iridescent 20:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Kill it with fire and blacklist it to prevent linking from Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. The . . . publication is deeply flawed as a source of reliable information. I'm also of the opinion that almost everything anything that it reported which is in fact true could easily be replaced with a more trustworthy source. Ifly6 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - not a justified proposal nor a serious concern for this long-defunct paper. Seems just a recentism fad or popularity contest here, and not based on looking at WP usage or actual damage vs benefit to articles. The links may be about sensational crime or celebrity events, topics the latter coverage did. Or may be about historical coverage, decades back. Regardless, any such link must have been in place for 9 years as acceptable ... don’t ‘fix’ what isn’t broken. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate - and nuke it from orbit; its the only way to be sure. We're an encyclopedia, not a tool for rumor-mongering. It's a damn shame we can't just blacklist it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate as a news source: I agree with what Iridescent says above. Historical film reviews may be significant. — Bilorv (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The paper was around since the 1800s. Less reliable sights are still allowed. HAL333 19:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate as a news source. It's trash - all such tabloids (Sun, Mirror, mail, Express, Star, Sport, etc), are worth less than nothing in reporting terms. - SchroCat (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (News of the World)

I would agree with this statement. What does it mean for our wording here? Does "deprecate" (in our WP sourcing context) implicitly mean that second exception? We can't fully cover the Falklands, or the diet of Freddie Starr, without mentioning The Sun in some self-referential WP:PRIMARY cases. No doubt there's similar for the NotW. Should such exceptions be recognised implicitly and automatically within the statement "This source is now deprecated on WP", or do we need to state that explicitly for each case? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
As someone who has accidentally used shit sources before, I am all for making our job as editors a little bit easier by keeping trash like this out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: PolitiFact

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I believe the consensus of PolitiFact being reliable has been reaffirmed. Anyone wishing to modify the current description at WP:RSPS regarding their occasional mistakes may do so, though I personally don't think it's necessary since it already notes the necessity of attribution whenever the source is cited. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that the perennial sources list circumscribes PolitiFact's reliability (because the only RS noticeboard about PolitiFact asked about its reliability for a circumscribed set of issues). It's therefore worthwhile to ask for clarity's sake:

Survey (PolitiFact)

  • Yes, generally reliable. The Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact of the 12-time Pulitzer Prize-winning Tampa Bay Times which is owned by the respected non-profit Poynter Institute is indeed a reliable source. Here's the last RSN discussion about PolitiFact: while it was not about 'general reliability', it did conclude with overwhelming agreement that PolitiFact was indeed reliable for fact-checking.[15] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    What sorts of things does PolitiFact publish aside from fact checking? --Jayron32 20:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable but that doesn't mean reliable in every case nor does that imply weight. Media Bias/Fact Check ranks the site low for bias and high for factual reporting [[16]]. However, there have also been at least a few recent articles suggesting the source has dropped the ball [[17]], [[18]]. Springee (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • MBFC is not a reliable source in the slightest. It has a ludicrous methodology, and is basically just one random guy's part-time work. The Fox News piece quibbles about how PolitiFact refused to label something as "false". The NR piece is an op-ed by someone who wants to hang women who have abortions complaining about how PF fact-checked one of his own statements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What evidence do you have that MBFC isn't reliable? I get that it's not listed as a WP:RS but I'm not using it in an article so that doesn't matter. Funny that you would attack MBFC given it supports your views in this matter. The other two items show that PolitiFact isn't always correct or without some controversy even though in general I would agree it's a reliable source. Springee (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Funny that you would attack MBFC given it supports your views in this matter." Some editors edit in a principled consistent manner. A shit source is a shit source regardless of whether it supports my claims or not. Every time someone cites MBFC on the RS noticeboard, an angel dies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable, including for supplemental details that come up in the course of their fact-checking; but as mentioned above and below, the discussion that led to this should probably be over WP:DUE and not WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable, as are other fact-checking sources. That limited RfC has no value for general application. PolitiFact is generally a RS, especially in their area of expertise, which is vetting claims that may or may not be false or misleading. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable. (edited to bold my view of the source - Q&A follows unedited) Where is this being challenged? It appears to be generally reliable but context matters. Guy (help!) 10:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
At Talk:Mark Levin, diffs in the discussion below. - Ryk72 talk 10:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Ryk72, OK. So the question is not reliability (it's clearly reliable) but one of due weight. Guy (help!) 18:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
JzG, Agreed the question there is not general reliability, but specific reliability (in the context of the proposed text); and of DUE and of IMPARTIAL to a lesser extent. - Ryk72 talk 23:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Ryk72, It's both: generally reliable and specifically reliable for these facts. I'd stick with UNDUE if I were you. Guy (help!) 23:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I've addressed the specific reliability in the context of the proposed text at the article Talk page. - Ryk72 talk 23:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Ryk72, incorrectly, IMO. But that is for the talk page. Guy (help!) 08:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable per Snooganssnoogans and others. Their fact checking is well researched and well respected by other reliable sources. I agree that the previous RfC was too narrowly focused. mediabiasfactcheck.com is not a reliable source; Fox News is a questionable source; and National Review is a partisan (mostly) opinion source.- MrX 🖋 11:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable per MrX. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable Per clarifications made below. Now that I know what the source of the conflict was, I agree that the existing guidance is too restrictive. I have seen no evidence that PolitiFact publishes unreliable things, and lots of external evidence that the journalism world holds their work in the highest possible regard. I can think of no reason why its use should be deprecated, and we should not be afraid to use it to verify anything (within the normal limits of using sources appropriately and in the correct context). --Jayron32 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable; factchecks should be attributed. The outcome of factcheck should be attributed per RSOPINION. e.g. PolitiFact rated this claim as "mostly true" or similar. - Ryk72 talk 23:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    Ryk72, Missed this comment, which IMO is spot on. Guy (help!) 15:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable for news, politics, and fact checks. Since the Poynter Institute operates both PolitiFact and the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), PolitiFact's IFCN accreditation is not an independent third-party evaluation. However, the assessments from 2017, 2018, and 2019 show PolitiFact making its own case that it is a generally reliable source. The assessments contain evidence of PolitiFact's strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, including its ethics policy, sourcing policy, funding disclosures, staff list, methodology, and list of error corrections. — Newslinger talk 01:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What Ryk72 said. Generally reliable, but attribution required for the factual rating. feminist (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable-Politifact performs far more "fact-checks" on conservatives than liberals, and these are of dubious quality. It's an opinionated outlet masquerading as an impartial arbiter of truth. Display name 99 (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, generally reliable., known for careful fact checking. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Faulty concept" Any source can be reliable or unreliable. "Generally" promotes the concept of over generalization. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Concerned by their refusal to correct a fact check they blew [19] Note that their data end in 2014 for fact-checking Trump's 2016 statement. They say that "2014 is the last full year for which data is available", which was true at the time, but there were plenty of city-level data for 2015, available at the time, showing that homicides were up.[20][21][22]. Politifact should have paid attention, but they didn't. And yes, the 2015 and 2016 data, when they became available, showed a rise in the worst violent crimes, especially homicide.[23][24] Most concerning of all, Politifact was called out on it at the time [25] but the article is still up on their site, uncorrected. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    Your argument is veering dangerously close to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, you have decided to substitute “homicide” and “the worst violent crimes" for “crime” and in doing such you are incorrectly representing your sources. Your argument is not only WP:OR but is plainly factually inaccurate. The irony of you being an unreliable editor on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard is hopefully not lost on anyone. Please provide accurate summaries of sources in the future and avoid misleading/false summaries which push a particular political agenda. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    To quote WP:OR -- Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Is this page a Wikipedia article? Would the other responses to this very RfC run afoul of WP:OR if placed in a Wikipedia article? If so, why does mine merit an attack on WP:OR grounds, while others don't? The upshot is that I'm finding it difficult to WP:AGF here. Can User:Horse Eye Jack help me out in that regard? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    Generally reliable In the rare case where they are obviously wrong, you would have a better source to use anyway. RockingGeo (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Sock strike. – Levivich 19:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Something else - Keep the circumscribed as is because basically thats what they do and the scope we’re evaluating for, and keep attribution in re their analysis opinions. RS depends on context, and the scope of their competence and any caveats (nobody is perfect) is what needs to be identified. For example, they seem not suitable for WP:MEDRS, their experience seems in U.S. national politics, with a slight left-lean POV. And that’s only for their signature rating articles, punditfact or sidepieces would be Case-by-case. I do see extensive criticism from politifactbias.com, and individual dings from mediabiasfactcheck, the federalist, newsbusters, Breitbart, xkcd (humor), etcetera. Seems largely critiques about left-leaning by ratings that are excessively or inconsistently negative towards the right. NPR has a transcript of the show Political Fact-checking Under Fire. Forbes has a piece on how Obama’s ‘Keep your health care’ promise rating occurred and shifted about is part of a “troubled state” for ‘fact-checking’ journalism. A plausible RS on U.S. political info, but it’s rating should not be given as itself worth mention in most cases, and should not be portrayed as ‘fact’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable - same song, second verse: 🎼exercise caution and try to verify with original documents when possible.𝄇 If WP:RECENTISM is at play, then use in-text attribution. Atsme Talk 📧 18:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable by personal experience using and reading source, often adding additional useful info. "PolitiFact ... been berra berra good... to me." X1\ (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable Politifact has some great articles, and they've earned some prestigious awards for their reporting. The details of their reporting can be used to support factual claims without attribution, but I think their truth ratings should be attributed, since the determination between true, mostly true, half true, etc is necessarily an opinion. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (PolitiFact)

What has changed about PolitiFact since the last discussion we had? Has there been a change of ownership or of who works there or of what they publish to lead you to believe that it is a different quality of source since the last time we went through this discussion? The last discussion was rather overwhelmingly that PolitiFact's individually fact-checking of politicians statements was scrupulously reliable, and that it's proprietary "percentage truth" calculations were broadly reliable and useful as a primary source with direct attribution to PolitiFact. That was fairly clear in the last discussion on both of those. So, unless you have a different use for the source than one of those two in mind (that is, do you find PolitiFact being used for something other than factchecking statements of politicians or to report on their own "truth scale" of percentages) OR you have some evidence that PolitiFact is not the same level of reliability that it was in 2016, I'm not sure what you expect to change... --Jayron32 20:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The old RS/N discussion is specifically about PF's reliability "for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates?" and attribution for "reporting the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate". In other words, PF is not "generally reliable". Editors have exploited these qualifiers and ambiguities to argue that PF is therefore not a RS in situations which do not revolve around political candidates[26][27]. I guess the ambiguity could also be exploited to argue that PF is unsuable for content which does not explicitly relate to fact-checking a specific statement... i.e. if PF provides background info on something. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It looks like the results here will be used to justify inclusion of material in the Mark Levin article [[28]]. Presumably if PolitiFact is deemed reliable then all objections can be swept aside. Springee (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Seeing as how each objection to the material on the Levin article, with the exception of one about WP:RS, centers around WP:UNDUE, that's not the case. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Then there was no reason to open this RfC vs just referencing the old one. Springee (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Given that ambiguities in the last RS/N discussion are being exploited to argue that it's not a RS, then there is clearly a need to make sure that the perennial sources list clearly describes PolitiFact as "generally reliable". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Did you check the list before asking the question? It's listed here already [[29]] as "Generally Reliable". Springee (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The text in 'summary' adds qualifiers to its reliability. The sole purpose of this RfC is to get rid off those qualifiers to ensure that bad editors don't exploit the ambiguities and waste everyone's time trying to dispute that PolitiFact is a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Then why don't you be up front with your motivations/intentions and tell us what you think is wrong and link to the previous discussions and say why they were wrong. While you are at it, please ping those editors who objected last time so their concerns aren't lost. It looks like you are trying to do a run around based on a content dispute. Springee (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
What on Earth are you on about? "tell us what you think is wrong" - PolitiFact should be described as generally reliable without any unnecessary constraining qualifiers as to situations when it's reliable. What exactly about this confuses you? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That discussion seems like a mess. I agree that the discussion should focus on WP:DUE (which is normal when something is mentioned in only one high-quality source, and could reasonably go either way presuming we're just discussing a comparable one-line mention in the article), but three of the comments seem to object to Snooganssnoogans in particular, with two of them literally not offering any reason for their position beyond that. In any case UberVegan's interpretation of how we can use Politifact (which is the only thing that really relates to WP:RS) seems too narrow, but I'm not sure we need a separate RFC for that. --Aquillion (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a misuse of the RfC process. Questions about reliability should mention the specific source and the text it is supposed to support. The first page to raise the issue is at RSN and RfCs should only be used if no result is found. Opinions expressed in the most reliable sources for example cannot be used as facts in articles. DUE is another important issue. Facts that only appear in Politico, or similar sources, lack weight for inclusion in most articles. TFD (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    The Four Deuces, yes and no. I think it's fair to ask the abstract question "is X a reliable source?", but in this case it's the wrong question because while the answer is "yes", it's the only reliable source to cover this matter, as far as I can see, so we have a situation where the significance of a fact for inclusion is being asserted on the basis of the existence of a fact-check. That is not really a question of reliability but of due weight. Guy (help!) 18:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What are the current restrictions? So what are the current restrictions on the use of PolitiFact? If this RfC is going to supersede the results of the last one (which appears to have large number of respondents), what were the previous concerns and have the previous involved editors been notified? Springee (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    The problem, apparently, is not that there are restrictions, it's that the people are arguing that merely because it doesn't say that there aren't restrictions, there must be restrictions. At least, that's how I read the above discussion. They have latched on to some imprecise wording in a prior discussion to essentially restrict the use of the source, when the source is clearly scrupulously reliable. At least, that is my understanding based on the several explanations above. --Jayron32 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    Jayron32, Not far wrong, I reckon. Unfortunately the current right-wing goal of getting people to equate mainstream with partisan left wing is working at a subconscious level: entirely impartial reporting that shows right wing figures to be liars, crooks or bigots, is seen as biased. The hyper-partisan left has also played a part, seeking to portray the mainstream as part of the establishment and therefore untrustworthy, but, to be blunt, they don't have the billions of dollars it takes to buy entire broadcasting networks and feed that into every home. Guy (help!) 23:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    To be fair, it looks like it was only one person. I'm not convinced it was worth this RfC just because one editor made a misguided suggestion, but whatever we're here now. Nil Einne (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What is the question? ? ? If this is adjusting RS Scope then needs to state what scope or the restrictions are, if this is a question of checking the prior results it is unnecessary, and this is not the appropriate thing for a DUE question. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DeepDotWeb as a reference

To quote our article, "DeepDotWeb was a news site dedicated to events in and surrounding the dark web featuring interviews and reviews about darknet markets, Tor hidden services, legal actions, privacy, bitcoin and related news". The site was seized by the FBI in May and several people were arrested in connection to its operation. Two people were charged with money laundering relating to kickbacks they received on purchases of illegal goods from dark web sites. It is used in several articles about dark web sites. Is this considered a reliable source or does the commercial and promotional nature of the site make it unreliable? Bitter Oil (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"Commercial nature" is not a strike against a source's reliability. The first duty of a publisher is to turn a profit, because closed publishers don't produce sources.
User:Bitter Oil, are there few enough of these that it would be possible for you to replace them with better sources? You don't actually need someone to declare that a source is unreliable (which would involve reviewing the individual statements) to swap in a better source. It's okay to replace potentially weak sources with good ones. No extra permission is needed for this. Just click the edit button and see what you can do to help improve the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The Epoch Times, once again

The Epoch Times is currently listed as a questionable source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and usually described as a "falun-gong mouthpiece" in previous discussions. They have recently come under scrutiny for being a Trumpian partisan outlet as well, to the point where Facebook banned them from further advertising on their platform. At the moment they still have those same video ads running on YouTube, with a guy snapping his fingers to changing headlines, using alt-right bingo buzzwords like "mainstream media", "hidden agendas", or "Russia hoax" that could've just as well come from a Trump campaign spokesperson. I think it is time to reclassify this website in the same category as the The Daily Caller and the National Enquirer. --bender235 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias does not make it not RS as such, usable with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. This is a typical "biased source" and as such can be used per policy with appropriate attribution. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The Epoch Times isn't a matter of bias. It's a matter that it deliberately and calculatedly publishes misinformation. It should be deprecated. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
That does not look good at all... My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Support deprecating The Epoch Times as a reliable source per nom and Nblund. See my RfC below re: Media Matters for America. We should not be, either, considering PACs and non-profits directly connected to PACs to be reliable sources. Doug Mehus T·C 00:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The Epoch Times

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing per an old request at WP:AN/RFC. There is considerable consensus to deprecate The Epoch Times as a source. While there is extremely weak consensus for the "marginally reliable" and "generally unreliable" options, the arguments presented in favor of those options vary too much to present a unified counterargument, unlike those in favor of the "deprecate" option. Therefore, I say we treat this similar to Breitbart News and Occupy Democrats, in that it can still be used as a reference, just never ever to cite statements presented as facts. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Epoch Times (RSP entry)?

— Newslinger talk 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Context matters: Please indicate if you have different opinions on different aspects of The Epoch Times's news coverage, such as edition (the English edition at theepochtimes.com HTTPS links HTTP links and the Chinese edition at epochtimes.com HTTPS links HTTP links), topic (e.g. Chinese politics, American politics, international politics, and Falun Gong-related topics), and year of publication. The closer is advised to evaluate whether there are separate consensuses for different aspects of the publication. — Newslinger talk 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (The Epoch Times)

  • Deprecate The publisher of such articles as 3-Year-Old Remembers Past Life as Snake and Refugees with two wives in Germany: Both can get social assistance is not a credible source. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate ASAP. Under no circumstance should this Falun Gong propaganda machine be considered a reliable source. The links provided by other users above make the source's utter unreliability crystal clear. For those new to the topic, I recommend this recent write up (The New Republic), think Russia Today—as the New Republic article puts it: "The Times has built a global propaganda machine, similar to Russia’s Sputnik or RT, that pushes a mix of alternative facts and conspiracy theories that has won it far-right acolytes around the world." :bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 2 or 3 This isn't a good source, but judging by its complete usage, I don't see a reason for general prohibition on its use. The domains theepochtimes.com (English version) and epochtimes.com (Chinese version - is this RfC about both?) are used 1,348 times in Wikipedia. Most that I glimpsed through were rather uncontroversial, especially from the Chinese domain. The discussion above was rather insincere in my view. The Facebook advert ban was due to circumventing Facebook's political advertisement rules, not its news coverage. A QAnon story is being cited in support of deprecating it, but all I see in that story is reporting what the QAnon is, not advocating for it. Yeah, they also have more trashy stuff like the vaccine story as a "VIEWPOINTS" article, but so do many other lower-end sources like The Huffington Post. As for being pro-Trump: WP:PARTISAN applies and it should not be used for controversial statements. It's not feasible to deprecate all lower-end sources from the right-wing of the political spectrum. --Pudeo (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
According to the Epoch Times, they are unaware of why they were blocked from Facebook ([30]). Whether that's true or not is unclear, as the source is itself not unreliable, but what is clear is that the Epoch Times is a propaganda outlet for Falun Gong—it's about reliable and journalistic as Russia Today. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The articles states If the Q posts are real, they may indicate that the Trump administration has established an alternate channel to speak to supporters, bypassing news outlets and social media altogether for something more direct. They're clearly pushing this as a plausible idea. Also: they were banned by Facebook because they created sockpuppet domains so that they could continue to run conspiracy themed ads that failed to meet Facebook's absurdly lax standards. This isn't just a low quality source. Nblund talk 16:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. "Context matters" is not an appropriate approach for a source that just makes stuff up while claiming not to - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I'd say close to RT or Global Times for Chinese politics and controversial statements, close to CS Monitor or Deseret News for general topics. Epoch Times is a publication associated with a new religious movement suppressed by China. It's obviously biased against China and its ruling party (thus WP:PARTISAN applies), but it runs both ways: Global Times is unlikely to be much better of a source for Epoch Times than vice versa. feminist (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. The Epoch Times peddles unconfirmed rumours, conspiracy theories such as QAnon, and antivax propaganda, causing itself to be banned by Facebook. See NBC expose, Washington Post article, and NYT article. According to The New Republic, its European sites are even worse, and have become the mouthpiece of the far right fringe. -Zanhe (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate As per sources on the Epoch Times page they "peddle conspiracy theories about the 'Deep State,' and criticize 'fake news' media" and "its network of news sites and YouTube channels has made it a powerful conduit for the internet’s fringier conspiracy theories, including anti-vaccination propaganda and QAnon, to reach the mainstream." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 2 As I said bias is not a criteria for exclusion. We can use it if we attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate - per Zanhe above and MarioGom below. starship.paint (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 4 (Deprecate) or 3 Some news pieces are just fine, but usually a more realiable source exists for the same events. On the other hand, they insist on pushing for WP:FRINGE theories, they use news pieces as a hook for conspiracies (see my comment in the discussion) and you cannot just single them out by excluding opinion pieces. This undermines the reliability of The Epoch Times as a whole. Their magazines include a lot of WP:FRINGE commentary of notable wingnuts and charlatans, which may be useful for attributed quotes of these subjects' views when they are WP:DUE. --MarioGom (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate - per Zanhe--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable, would need a very strong reason to include this as a source for anything. Guy (help!) 12:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate - The Epoch Times was founded as a propaganda outlet for a new religious movement and has, over time, gotten less reliable rather than more. While it was previously a relatively trashy outlet that was generally untrustworthy for anything controversial but might serve for routine, non-controversial information, it has transformed into a platform for pseudoscience, conspiracism and misinformation. The veneer of respectability and the ubiquity of Epoch Times newspapers in major urban centers makes it a substantial risk as a source of RS-looking misinformation on Wikipedia. We need to eliminate this source once and for all. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate both versions. A source that merely has a perspective (even a strong perspective) is usable, but a biased source that also spreads conspiracy theories or fringe theories in the service of their bias is not; it's clear that this source lacks the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. Since both versions are under the same management and seem intended to serve the same purpose, neither seems like a usable source. --Aquillion (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate This does not seem reliable, especially given its history of consipracy theories and support of what elsewhere could be considered Fake news. --- FULBERT (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate seems appropriate here because they publish conspiracy theories and hoaxes, and they've willfully mislead readers and advertisers. From what I can tell, the overwhelming majority of the content is unattributed aggregations of other news stories. The writers for the site are doing dozens of stories per day. Jack Phillips wrote 15 on October 8, none of those stories appear to involve any original reporting, and there are plenty of other sources for all of them. The content that is "original" to the site is garbage. They've repeatedly pushed QAnon, and now "Spygate", and their "wellness" reporting is rife with quackery. Stories like this one appear to be unmarked advertising, and they've given over a decade of breathlessly positive coverage of the Shen Yun performing arts company. None of that coverage discloses that the performing group is a project of the Falun Gong. Obviously there are worse sources out there, but this one seems to pose a high risk of causing a problem here because they have the look of a credible website Nblund talk 16:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. No reason for an encyclopedia to use such a low-quality publication. Neutralitytalk 18:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2- per feminist and Slatersteven. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 (first choice) or "2" (second choice). Looks similar to Fox news or RT (Russia). My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate/Option 4 Too unreliable. If they have reliable articles, it will be covered by other news outlets too. The Banner talk 21:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I dislike the trend towards deprecating sources willy-nilly. I think it should be reserved for extreme cases. I looked at some of the examples of allegedly "fake" reporting listed here, and my impression was that the Epoch Times was writing a story about something that didn't need a story written about it, but I didn't see anything that was obviously false. That said, I couldn't find a corrections page on their site, so I'd go with option 3. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 1, 2, or 3 - depends on the context I think, and not a broad category. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 or possibly 3, per Nblund. If a person with a Wikipedia article wrote an opinion piece that appeared on Epoch Times, I'd first ask myself why they couldn't get it published elsewhere, and potentially use it with direct attribution, but never for regular news reporting. I don't think they'd tamper with other people's opinion pieces but that's a low bar. Anything Epoch Times can provide reliable coverage for should have reliable coverage elsewhere.-Ich (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per Zanhe and others above. Bobbychan193 (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - Epoch Times is an unreliable source, publishing alarmist "news" stories that are often fringe theories or conspiracy theories. Definitely not up to the standards of Wikipedia for a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate - Epoch Times has always been unreliable for Chinese political news, but it seems to have been moving toward fringe conspiracy theories on a host of other issues, as others have highlighted. I don't think it meets our standards for general usage.--Danaman5 (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 / Deprecate: There's been weak to no support in this discussion for ET's journalistic integrity. Per :bloodofox: and Nblund: while the patently partisan bias alone isn't enough to justify its deprecation, there's been much ado about how far their writers will alter their stories to sway readers towards their own views. →‎ GS →‎ ☎ → 10:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3: They cover conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories. They're not trying to say any of that nonsense is true, just that it's a notable part of the discourse. And the "mouthpiece" argument makes no sense given that 99% of their article are not about that. Are newspapers started by Christians automatically mouthpieces for Christianity? Connor Behan (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Generally unreliable but not completely useless as a source in all contexts. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (The Epoch Times)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 04:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine MarioGom (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Why are we even having this discussion? Did someone blank Wikipedia:RSCONTEXT without telling me? Does the FAQ at WT:V which has said "The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support" for years, suddenly disappear? This source, like every other source, can only be judged to be reliable in context. It's not "reliable" or "not reliable". As a general rule, this source is going to be "reliable for certain narrowly written and carefully contextualized statements". It may be best to use it with WP:INTEXT attribution. It may not be the best possible source for general information. But reliability is not a yes-or-no situation. The whole concept behind this RFC (also: an RFC on a high-traffic noticeboard? What's going on with that?) is flawed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • We're having this conversation because the argument has been made that this outlet has equivalent reliability to sources like The Daily Mail and The National Enquirer while still being used as a source in multiple articles. As it is actively anti-reliable as a source, site-wide action is necessary. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • WhatamIdoing: Sources can be used in certain contexts even if they are WP:DEPRECATED. You may have to argue with someone who thinks that deprecated means completely blacklisted, but it should be ok otherwise if it is justified. Do you see any problem with this specific RfC? Or you are against the source deprecation process itself, or maybe the perennial sources list? --MarioGom (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm against anything that indicates to other editors that the rest of us think don't think they can figure out how to write a decent article without the rest of us telling them to follow some more rules first. People with a classical education might be thinking about the Woes of the Pharisees here, and I admit that it's not far from my mind.
        MarioGom, I see your account is just two and a half years old, so you probably don't remember when Wikipedia:Ignore all rules was taken seriously as a policy, when the article was more important than the rules, and when "You may have to argue with someone" to be permitted to do what was right by an article meant that a policy or process was fundamentally broken. If RS/P results in editors having to argue with mindless rule-followers about whether it's okay to improve an article, and if it's putting the emphasis on what's "allowed" instead of what's best for the article, then I'll be against it. If it provides practical help to editors writing articles, then I'll be all for it. Perhaps you can tell me which category you think it's most likely to fall into. So far, all I see is that the list grows endlessly, and it is largely populated by people who aren't creating much content, and largely used by people who aren't genuinely trying to figure out whether a source is desirable in a particular article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
        • The way I look at it (certainly others may feel differently) is that, given the (absolutely appropriate) emphasis on Reliable Sourcing, the RS/P is an incredibly useful tool, especially for new editors who may not have a firm grasp on what constitutes a reliable source or know how to dig through the RSN archives. I know it certainly was for me. I also believe that its usefulness is directly connected to its accuracy, and these discussions help to improve that accuracy by giving an accurate measure of a source's basic credibility. Even RSCONTEXT says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Discussions like this help us assign a rough reliability, according to this exact metric, to sources. Yes, context is still important, but that doesn't mean that the New York Times and the National Enquirer should be treated the same, as if they each require the same amount of scrutiny to determine whether a given article in either is acceptable to cite for an article here. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
          • AmbivalentUnequivocality, could you explain that bit about RSCONTEXT better? I'm not sure how it relates. That sentence, in plain English, means "The New York Times, which has more than four thousand employees, is usually more reliable than little tiny newspapers like The Mulberry Advance, whose sole employee has to do everything from selling subscriptions to writing articles to sweeping the floor". I don't see how any discussion on Wikipedia could realistically "help to improve that accuracy", because "according to this exact metric", the only way for a source to become more reliable is to hire more journalists. The number of Wikipedians involved in these RFCs is irrelevant "according to this exact metric". "This exact metric" is about what they do, not about what we do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
            • WhatamIdoing Certainly. My reading on that sentence is slightly different than yours. I don't see it as being the same as "More employees = more reliable" because not all publications utilize their employees the same way. It is about how many people are actually engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing. More employees does not necessarily mean that they have more people doing those things. A large paper could employ thousands of people and still not commit any sizable number of them to fact checking, and a small paper could have relatively few employees but still conduct robust and thorough fact checking on what material they publish. It is what they do with their employees, and how well they do it, that matters. Yes, this metric is about what they do, but our part in it is elucidating what it is that they are doing. Our part is figuring out how robust their reputation for fact checking is, how strong their editorial oversight is, how readily they retract and correct errors. Publications that knowingly publish false claims, or unknowingly publish easily disprovable ones, clearly show a lack of such robustness. We can improve the RS/P by accurately assessing how well a given publication commonly meets these criteria. There is value in having a list that accurately represents the general quality of various sources according to the established criteria of what constitutes reliability, but to do that we must determine how well a given source meets those criteria. I believe that is something we can do, and I believe that discussions like this aid in achieving that goal. Treating every source as though they are all equally likely to produce reliable reporting seems shortsighted to me. Yes, reliability is about what they do. Our discussions do not make a publication reliable or unreliable. But our discussions do help accurately assess whether they are doing the things that are considered indicative of general reliability (Robust fact checking, editorial oversight, etc.), or whether they are engaged in behavior that is indicative of pervasive unreliability (Intentionally publishing false or misleading claims, pushing fringe conspiracy theories, etc.) AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
        • WhatamIdoing: So if I understand correctly, you are against the deprecation of sources itself or this kind of RfC, but you have no particular concern about this specific RfC. I can understand that. It has certainly been problematic for me in the past. For example, when spotting an inaccurate story published at a sourced marked as generally reliable on perennial sources. But that's beyond the scope here, I guess. --MarioGom (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
          • That's the issue as I see it, and not beyond consideration here, that commentary must be distinguished from credible news, even in articles that are reporting some news. A neutral point of view doesn't sell many books or newspapers. Jzsj (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Frankly I think the use of newsmedia is generally inappropriate for an encyclopedia and leads to many of our woes surrounding WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT and WP:DUE across the site. When a newsmedia source compounds this problematic character by straight-up fabricating news to push a POV, well, if I think we shouldn't be leaning so hard on the NYT you can imagine what I think about such tabloids. And the Epoch Times, which was founded with the intent of being used as a propaganda outlet is one of the worst of a bad bunch. I'm sure an WP:IAR case might exist where deprecation might prove a challenge, but honestly I don't see it. And avoiding a 99% improvement to avoid a 1% chance of future impediments seems like weak cost-benefit analysis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
            • ^agreed. The consensus on deprecation can always change, but I have spent some time browsing the site, and I really haven't found a single story that appears reliable and not covered by a more reputable source. The Washington Post reports that the majority of the staffers are mostly part-time/volunteers rather than journalists, so it seems pretty unlikely that you're going to see any real reporting coming from them. Nblund talk 17:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
              • I agree with Jzsj's point. That's why we avoid {{one source}} articles. Librarians make a distinction between having "a balanced book" and "a balanced library": while there's a place in the world for a balanced book (history textbooks for schoolchildren spring to mind as an example), it's usually better to have multiple books (e.g., a book about a war that argues persuasively that it was all economics, a book that promotes the diplomatic aspects, a book that that focuses on the Great man theory, etc., so that you end up with a balanced view). But you have to read multiple sources to figure out where the sources differ from each other.
                Simonm223, it's always good to find an idealist on the English Wikipedia. ;-)
                Nblund, I believe that's true. However, the definition of "reliable" isn't "the most reputable source we could use for this statement". "Barely reliable" is still reliable. (IMO this source is probably "reliable enough" for some claims. You won't see me seeking it out, however.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Just a warning even about high school history books. It's reliably reported that conservative groups attend trustees meetings as in Texas and New York, and any trustee who approves of a book that criticizes capitalism or American democracy is "history". The few publishers don't take a chance with such books. To get a more objective course in American history one needs to use a college textbook. Jzsj (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Epoch Times. — Newslinger talk 01:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are public records reliable?

Are public record websites, like persopo.com reliable? I’ve used them in articles with no problem before, but an admin told me that I should use more reliable sources. User:Andhw (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Not how you're using them. See WP:BLP and especially WP:BLP#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIMARY is explicit in saying "Do not use public records that include personal details". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Also how reliable is persopo.com?Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

http://www.thedieselshop.us/ as used in ALCO PA

Contentious change due to possible failure to meet reliable sources standards because it's some rail fan guy's website for other railfans and possible WP:UNDUE addition of material on the principle that if it's worth including, a reliable source would have covered it. The inserting editor states in edit summary later on that the basis for their changes at Special:diff/929507621 was from http://www.thedieselshop.us/MoPac.HTML I personally don't think it satisfies the requirement, because it's some website that's cobbled together by some rail fan dude who doesn't appear to what Wikipedia considers as a recognized expert. I would like to get consensus whether contents from thedieselshop.us is appropriate for anything train related. Graywalls (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  • The roster lists do generally give sources. For example, on MoPac, it's Extra 2200 South, Diesel Era, Missouri Pacific Diesel Power, Railroad & Railfan, and Trains. I don't propose to go into all of those now, but I would say that they are all, for different reasons, reliable sources. I've had several occasions to check the Diesel Shop's rosters against reliable sources in my possession (a tedious, time-consuming task), and I've found that they're accurate. A note on that point: reliable sources do cover locomotive rosters. I have several published books which have printed them, in various formats; Railroad History, the publication of the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society, has also printed them. These sources have certain limitations: some don't cover export models (while some do), some omit industrial railroads (for example, Jeff Wilson's Guide to North American diesel locomotives (2017) does not include EMD SD40s delivered to Detroit Edison). The Diesel Shop aggregates existing reliable sources, as we would, but without the hassle of going through fifty years of back numbers of Extra 2200 South (which isn't the main topic here).
  • Now, all that said, there are two main reasons the Diesel Shop is cited: locomotive rosters (for the inevitable Original owners section), and locomotive performance data. The latter is much more easily replaced by manuals and secondary sources. The former is tricky, because of my above comments on completeness. To the extent that we're relying on the Diesel Shop to aggregate and collate existing sources, as opposed to its own original research, I think we can consider using it with other sources. I recognize that's something less than calling it a reliable source.
  • The administrator of the site is R. Craig Rutherford (see [32]). His listed sources there includes a blend of reliable and unreliable sources, including unfortunately Wikipedia to "research historical and background info on railroads." I don't think that impacts roster reliability; otherwise we'd have a WP:CIRCULAR problem. Rutherford himself has published at least two books: Alco's FA : running in the shadow and Michigan's railroad scene; a rail fan's guide (this one appears to be self-published). I wouldn't say that makes him a recognized expert in the field of locomotives generally, but others may feel differently. I can't say the name rang a bell. He may be an expert on ALCOs, having published on the subject, but that's a specific question requiring a deeper look into ALCO scholarship. Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mackensen:,I I believe we could consider self-published books through self-publishing vanity presses on the same level as "some dude that has a website". Anyone can self-publish their own book through self-publishing vanity presses. Graywalls (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Graywalls: If they're not a recognized expert, then yes, a vanity or self-published source would be unacceptable. However, Thomas Taber self-published his three-volume history of the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad, but no questions his suitability as a source. Whether that applies in the case of Rutherford, either for ALCOs or diesel locomotives more generally, is unclear at this time. ALCO'S FA, Running In The Shadow was published by Four Ways West Publications, which is a specialty publisher focusing on railroads. Books of their imprint are used on ~20 articles. Rutherford's book was reviewed in Trains in July 2006.[1] I don't presently have access to the issue to see what was said about either Rutherford or the book. Mackensen (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks a lot like $FANSITE to me. There is a massive infrastructure of railway publishing, including periodicals and whole publishers dedicated to the field, so I'd say if it can't be cited to one of those reliable sources we should simply exclude. Guy (help!) 00:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I think it probably can, but with the caveat that for data from the 1950s-1970s involving private American companies data is harder to come by, which is a key difference with British railroading. Extra 2200 South, which the Diesel Shop uses extensively, is probably the best source on these questions (and relied on heavily by recent publications), but it's never been digitized nor indexed, is long out of print, and is held in about twenty libraries. I don't consider the Diesel Shop the best source, but to the extent that it relies on reliable sources it's reliable, and should be retained until the information can be sourced from a better location. The issue is clouded in that the specific complaint is about an ALCO article, and Rutherford may be a recognized expert on ALCO. I'm not entirely sure if this discussion is meant to be broader in scope. Mackensen (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
      • That would be WP:UNDUE issue as well. Just how much details, such as the weight, glass bulb dimensions, plant location, production start and end date, quantity per carton, cartons per master carton, retail vendor information should we have for the A7A19A60WESQD03 7.5W 120v light bulb? There are probably some internal literature that have all that information. Some light bulb fanatic dude might have a self published website on it and that fanatic might be considered an expert, but being a comprehensive, but not exhaustive means including ALL OF THAT anywhere on Wikipedia is probably WP:UNDUE and with all the arduous details of no interest to those other than rail fans is treading down the same path IMO. Graywalls (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
        • @Graywalls: What would be undue? Please be specific. You don't seem to be replying to anything I said, so I'm a little confused. If you're saying that a list of original owners would be undue, then there's no consensus for that view, and in any case it has nothing to do with the matter at hand, which is the reliability/expertise of Rutherford. Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
          • @Mackensen:, specific details, such as who originally bought which specific vehicles/customer database type information. Those are of interest to rail fanning special interests, but Wikipedia is not a place for including everything out there, especially information that seems to be only published by railfan personal websites. Wikipedia:NOTEVERYTHING. "data is harder to come by" isn't seen as an excuse for citing fan-sites, is it? I mean, there are probably data out there for dimensions of model specific faucet parts, vacuum cleaner belt weight, elastomer material used, serial # nomenclature and all those details that are verifiable, yet without being appropriate to tabulate into Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
            • @Graywalls: You're really all over the place here. None of this seems to have to do with source reliability. What I said was that a website which is surfacing reliable sources that are hard to come by, but which are known to exist, may be a suitable source pending better sources. This is entirely separate from the question of whether the information should be included at all, and there is a world of difference between saying who bought the thing, and giving minute details about that thing. You'll have no argument from me about excluding railfan trivia, but you go too far (and enough with the analogies already, we get it). Mackensen (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
              • @Mackensen:, the reliability of source plays a role in whether the inclusion of materials from that source carries due weight, so that is within the scope of reliable sources noticeboard. I don't remember off top of my head, but there is a wiki page that says if it's important enough, reliable sources would have written about it. Graywalls (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
                • @Graywalls: Well in that case the question is easy. The information exists in reliable sources, but they are offline and difficult to access. It's a well-recognized principle, for many reasons, that we do not discriminate against offline sources. Mackensen (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
                  • @Mackensen:, So, the best way would to be to convert it to a basic citation; rather than linking to a fan site. Graywalls (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
                    • @Graywalls: I have no idea what you mean by this. Is "it" the link to the diesel shop? It's hard to see how if you don't accept this as an acceptable link, you wouldn't have the same scruples about using it in a citation. By "convert it", do you mean go find all the offline sources and work from them? I'd love to, and will do so some time prior to the heat death of the universe. But we are very much in Wikipedia:There is no deadline territory (an essay you should ponder), and very far from whether Rutherford is an expert on ACLOs.
  1. ^ Weart, Ray (July 2006). "Review of ALCO'S FA, Running In The Shadow". Trains. Vol. 66, no. 7. p. 76. ISSN 0041-0934.

Self-published blog

Hi. I'm wondering if the content on this blog meets our requirements for non-controversial statements about Fred Bass in the Fred Bass article? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

As long as the content meets the standards described at WP:SELFPUB, it should be acceptable. Bass clearly controls that blog. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I hear you. Let's continue this discussion on Talk:Fred Bass. I'll copy your comment over there. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Encyclopedia.com

Story with Encyclopedia.com? Seems to aggregate sources we'd call reliable. Is it a reliable source? Reliable for content being in the source cited by it? Hyperbolick (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I see. In addition to search (which goes outside the source), it also allows browsing like here. Then, it works as an "aggregator/search engine" of articles collected from various other tertiary sources. Still, this not a source itself, but a "source finder". It may be useful to find other sources, but should not be used for in-line referencing itself. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Not a source per se, but can be used as a link in a source. They aggregate or host content from other sources without modifying it, so citations should be to the source of that aggregation rather than to encyclopedia.com; however, their sources are usually good, so citations to encyclopedia.com should generally be modified to name the original source and just use encyclopedia.com as a courtesy link. I don't feel that encyclopedia.com itself adds weight or reliability beyond what its sources have, which makes me feel like it's a mistake to name it as the source of the citation, albeit a minor mistake in most cases (eg. if they cited a Reddit post for an entry, would we trust that entry? No. Whereas a genuine reliable source could do a story about a Reddit post, and we could cite that.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I shudder at how much modern "journalism" is done by scouring social media for juicy tidbits. We're not allowed to do that on Wikipedia, but that's all the headlines at CBS news. Elizium23 (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Ehhhh. This is getting off-topic, but... the reality is that stuff that happens on social media does matter nowadays. And that means it sometimes rises to the point where it belongs in an encyclopedia. Secondary sources likewise have to cover it when it's relevant (thankfully for us.) Like, not everything Donald Trump tweets is relevant, but some of it certainly is. Similarly, while the vast majority of Reddit posts are insignificant, something like that EA post that was the most-downvoted post of all time does say something about how that particular aspect of that particular product was received, and got significant secondary coverage to that end. It's silly to demand that secondary sources rely on only what we would consider WP:RS primary sources, since often the point of a secondary source is to take those things and provide the interpretation and analysis that would be WP:OR if we did it ourselves. That is, we cannot say "this Reddit post being the most downvoted post in history illustrates that EA's position here was really really unpopular", since that would be WP:OR, but it probably is true, and we can and should rely on a secondary source to make that connection. I wouldn't trust something this particular site cited to Reddit because they provide no interpretation or analysis, they just repost stuff - that's why I don't think it's quite right to cite it as the source itself. But if something like the NYT or something does an article on a Reddit post, that's probably a sign that we should actually cover that post through such secondary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279&oldid=955621361"