Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

RfC: Telesur

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

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

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

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

I would have said not very reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I will add that RFCs are supposed to be neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Just noticed this after I performed the edit. Sorry!----ZiaLater (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

• As reliable as any other newsmedia outlet Either we accept that ownership of media implies a specific bias, in which case Telesur is biased, but so is the NYT or the BBC, or we don't accept that premise, in which case the ownership of Telesur is irrelevant. Now I'll preface this by saying, as always, that I feel we should not have as much dependence on newsmedia in general in current affairs issues, however the refusal to accept Venezuelan media sources as reliable while unquestioningly accepting American and British news sources as reliable is, in fact, a massive failure to adhere to WP:NPOV. So while my preference would be for us to slow the rate at which Wikipedia updates articles about recent events, any attempt to exclude a newsmedia communicated perspective on a political conflict on the basis of blanket reliability of a class of media (ex: state owned by states that we don't like (you'll note that few people are pointing out that the BBC is state-owned)) should be treated for the hegemonic propagandizing it is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Valid point, is there any evidence they actually falsify stories, or are just biased?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware of any evidence of falsification of stories, and that goes double for the specific context of this RfC - which challenges their use as a source for information regarding the evolving political situation in Venezuela. And again, I'm not suggesting that they aren't biased. I personally subscribe to the notion that all newsmedia has an implicit bias described by their ownership. CBC has a Canadian state bias, BBC a British one, China Daily has a Chinese state bias and Newsweek, the Economist, the New York Times, and all the rest of the corporate owned news organizations have a clear and pervasive pro-capital bias. This is why I feel, on a general note, that newsmedia has become too pervasive on Wikipedia as a source. It's true that sources don't have to be neutral but we depend far too much in general on news as a source of truth regarding disputed current events. Now with that said, I think that as long as we allow the treatment of capital owned newsmedia as reliable, we should also allow the treatment of state owned newsmedia as reliable, even when we, as wikipedia editors, are not aligned with or fond of those states. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out here that BBC is actually public owned (yes, it does receive some state funds... but so do organizations that exist to investigate the UK government), and both CBC and BBC will frequently challenge their own country. And we can accept some state sources and not others - we can easily determine reliability and neutrality based on how a state source presents their own country. Does it ever challenge its government when something sketchy comes up? The amount of criticism the BBC gives British politicians and Brexit proves its NPOV and RS because of how it does not just unwaveringly promote the stance of its nation's leader. Comparatively, TeleSur will spin every report into making Maduro look good, including blatant lying. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think they meant bias towards their country not the government specifically. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The argument seems to be based on abstract generalizations. Telesur and the BBC or NYT are not similar, not if we compare their actual editorial behavior. Cambalachero (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable; they don't just bias, they lie to cover up the humans rights violations of the dictatorship. There is evidence of falsified stories on our own Wikipedia page. When even Rory Caroll and Nikolas Kozloff call it propaganda, that's pretty bad. And it's propaganda from a regime widely known and sanctioned for narcotrafficcing and other criminal activities and human rights abuses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I might be missing it, I can see a lot about not saying stuff, nothing about outright lies.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Security and intelligence officials have been afraid that Telesur may be used by Russia for "fake news" and electoral interference. (Spanish) Allegations of "fake news" about Ukraine (Spanish). Alleged cooperation between Russian media and Telesur to disseminate misinformation. (Center for International Media Assistance) Telesur began rumor that El Chapo had placed bounty on Donald Trump. (Snopes) Just some information regarding Telesur and alleged false stories.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Except Telesur did not start the El Chapo rumour, they repeated it as fact (but then so did others). The others are better, but I am not sure I trust government bodies or statements any more then government run news organs. Can you give an example of then making up a story?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Except they did. The original "story" was part of "a satirical article". Telesur either repurposed the "story" or had some issue with fact-checking a self-described website used for "satirical purposes only".----ZiaLater (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

That just makes then no worse then the other sources that repeated it blindly (as they did).Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This comment also touches on something that can be used as a comparative: I would, for the right info, use Venezuelanalysis as a RS. Yes, it's owned by a Chavista. But is it at least vaguely neutral and accurate on protest news for both sides? Yeah. Not trusting TeleSur isn't merely because it's a state source or because it supports Maduro. It's because it breaks all the rules of journalism to be Maduro's personal cheerleader, which any outlet could do, it just happens to be this one - and whether accurate or not (most likely not) we can't accept an outlet that we have no faith in to even try acknowledge the full picture. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable. I knew the BBC comparison would be drawn, so I would like to quote an excellent book that I've read: La devastación chavista: Transporte y comunicaciones, by Antonio Pasquali (ISBN 9788417014148). Pasquali precisely explains the difference between the state-owned/state-funded television networks in the United Kingdom and in Venezuela, explaining the concerns of bias that existed when it was founded, and that it could favor a government or another. He continues saying how currently the BBC is praised because of its journalist integrity and impartiality, quoting as one of the reasons that it relies on public resources and not advertisement. What's the point that Pasquali makes? The difference between a government and State, which at least in Venezuela are terms usually confused. The BBC was founded in 1922, 96 years ago, while both Russia Today and Telesur were founded in 2005, only 14 years ago; reading through Wikipedia:Perennial sources, it doesn't seem there are doubts about the reliability of the BBC. Telesur has not operated in Venezuela with a different funding other than from the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, while I understand this is the same case with RT. I think it has also been discussed how former directors and journalists regret how Telesur has turned into an unreliable channel; when Argentina changed from government, the state retired its funding. Most important of all, I wanted to say this but not before explaining all of this: naming the CBC, the BBC, China Daily, Newsweek, the Economist, the New York Times, among others, only distracts from the main topic in question: Telesur, and it does not answer whatsoever on the question regarding its reliability.

Last but not least, I wanted to give my two cents on some of the lies and fake news published by Telesur: Progovernment protest in the Yaracuy state near a Metro station, where there isn't even a subway; quoting a White House official that doesn't exist (more information here); US military bases in Costa Rica; Student killed by security forces was killed because of antigovernment protests; Worker hit by tear gas cannister "fell" in a construction camp; Brazilian football team supports Lula da Silva. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Depends My general impression is that Telesur is not reliable for news about Venezuela (with the exception of reported statements of opinion from PSUV officials), but that their reporting outside the country is generally as reliable as any other mass media station. Before we toss aside the BBC comparisons, let's not forget that the BBC has admitted to using the British secret service to vet employee candidates and keep out "subversives", after lying about it for decades. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

That note about the BBC had no relation to the rest of your argument, as well as misrepresenting the actual facts which were trying to exclude 'radicals' - they take people from across the political spectrum, but not extremists who might put their own bias into reporting. Damn, you must really not like the BBC to bring them up for no reason other than to shade. Kingsif (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• • See the section Telesur (TV channel)#Political bias. They are not biased just in Venezuela's own politics, but also in foreign countries according to their political relation with Venezuela. Macri, president of Argentina, is a vocal critic of Maduro, and they do not treat him any less harshly than they would with Guaido, Capriles or López. Cambalachero (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable. This is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet, as is widely acknowledged. See, e.g., Corrales 2016 ("Telesur is emblematic of the Venezuelan regime's efforts to disseminate its worldview as widely as possible"); Painter 2008 ("Telsur is more in the Latin American tradition of state-funded channels acting as official megaphones..."); Carroll 2013 ("Then, from around 2007, Telesur mutated into a mouthpiece for Chavez."). This not the kind of thing to build an encyclopedia from. Neutrality^talk 18:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • • Comment Then by such standard we should't rely on BBC, VOA, F24, etc... Lets not forget that CNN, NYT, Fox News, etc... are too guilty of propaganda, if you want to remove TeleSUR then you should do the same for other media outlets or do you have double standards and want to force such onto Wikipedia? Its not that wasn't already enough for Sputnik and RT, say what you want, but hypocrisy is evident. Just look at media conduct for support of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, remember the Gulf War? TeleSUR is not reliable according to people who don't like their reporting regardless if its true or false, lies or facts. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The New York Times is a capitalist propaganda outlet. News has bias. See my statement above. Unless we're going to blanket bar news sources as an RS (something I actually could get behind) having a bias should not preclude reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • This is so ludicrous I'm not even going to attempt to respond. Neutrality^talk 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Because you can't, that is the truth and you can deny it. Their coverage is biased and propagandish. Lets not mention other media outlets like CNN nor American government being selective about journalists to have some or all control of the narrative. Media coverage of the Gulf War RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

      It is certainly not a very convincing argument for his case.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

      User:Simonm223 So why did you oppose Epoch times? --Shrike (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

      • Neutrality has it right; if you start from the place that the NYT is propaganda, there is no place else for the discussion to go. (And I'm no fan of the NYT.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
        • We can start from BBC of all, look at their disgraceful coverage of Corbyn from supposed neutral unbiased news outlet. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

References

• Comment. The Economist and Reuters, two allegedly reliable sources according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, doing some unbiased reporting on Venezuela. emijrp (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Now I wonder how will people in here that assert TeleSUR is unreliable source are going to explain why Reuters and others are neutral/unbiased despite having Guaido prominently on their page and lets not forget that in many many media the prevalence of Pro-Guaido articles shows extreme bias, let alone when anything neutral or "pro"-Maduro gets only published in opinion sections like Bloomberg when experts in law like Noah Feldman are brushed off which is like brushing off Stephen Hawking when it comes to physics. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

    Please see the False balance article (and the corresponding policy for Wikipedia articles at WP:FALSEBALANCE). Not all views deserve equal publishing space. — Newslinger talk 22:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • They did not place an image of Guaido because they endorse him in some way, but just because he's in the news. There's no conspiracy. Cambalachero (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable. Not only is it the fact that they are not reliable, this is not a debate of the likes of New York Times against Fox News, it's not that simple. Telesur is known for the fabrication of news for political gain or to divert attention to factual news, regarding the economic crisis (according to them, an economic war), the scarcity of public goods (a conspiracy of the few private companies left in the country with the help of the US), the murders of students during protest by the police (allegedly they were killed by "right wing" paramilitaries), and so on. Their job is the misinformation of the public, and to no matter what, present the Venezuelan government and their allies as the good guys fighting a long standing battle against bogus enemies. --Oscar_. (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin America, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics — Newslinger talk 02:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• • The false analogy fallacy is a common trick of left-wing supporters. When someone points to them something that is wrong with their stuff, they select a reputable and superficially similar item, and claim that "if you say that about us, you should say the same about them". Cambalachero (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Options

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

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

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

• Option 2: Telesur seems fine to me for reporting the statements of the Venezuelan government and its allies/supporters. I do not see what the issue with using it as a reliable source for those particular statements would be.Simon1811 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think Option 3 Option 3 or 4 is the description that suits Telesur the best, given its history and the discussion above, specially on topics regarding Venezuelan politics and its allies. The arguments so far in favour of Telesur have addressed only bias or editorial line, but has not answered the concerns regarding its reliability. It has been established in the discussion that not only Telesur is biased, but usually misrepresents, omits or fabricates important information. However, it's also the case that Telesur has deleted erroneous news or corrected themselves in the past, which is why Option 3 is probably the most accurate. Pinging users involved in previous discussions: @Rsheptak: @Squidfryerchef: @SashiRolls: @E.M.Gregory: --Jamez42 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 Telesur is generally reliable for coverage outside of Venezuela, and for statements of opinion from the PSUV. It's also worth noting that Telesur used to be more reliable on all issues (including Venezuela) in its earlier years, and that it has become less reliable as a consequence of changes to its board of directors and advisory council, as well as Argentina's exit from funding the network. However, I'm unaware of a strict cutoff date at which point Telesur became less reliable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  Here is a clear example of Telesur, yes, lying. A photojournalist has charged that in the 23 February clashes, Telesur took her images and altered them to show the opposite of what she observed and photographed. She says that not only did they use her photos without permission; they altered the truth in those phots.[1] Changing to Option 4; Telesur is all over Wikipedia, and they lie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 Honestly, TeleSur is by and far worse than the Daily Mail, though I think the description in 4 is inaccurate for both of them. The Daily Mail is somewhat reliable for factual information - it's when it reports things that other news doesn't that you know it's lying. The same can be said for TeleSur except that it's less reliable for facts and may publish lies about a story that is told correctly in other news, making it Generally Unreliable (3). Note that generally, of course, means in general/for most things. The verbatim reports of half of Venezuela politician's words is an exception, not the rule, here. Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 (first choice) or Option 3 (second choice). As I noted above, Telesur is widely acknowledged as a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. See, e.g., Corrales 2016 ("Telesur is emblematic of the Venezuelan regime's efforts to disseminate its worldview as widely as possible"); Painter 2008 ("Telsur is more in the Latin American tradition of state-funded channels acting as official megaphones..."); Carroll 2013 ("Then, from around 2007, Telesur mutated into a mouthpiece for Chavez."). Neutrality^talk 21:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 We shouldn't use state media in countries that there is no freedom of press --10:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs)
• Option 4 --Oscar_. (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 for the reasons I've already stated in discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 If BBC, F24, VOA and other government news outlet are considered reliable so should TeleSUR. RBL2000 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

— RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Shrike (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3. The numerous unfavorable descriptions of Telesur in established reliable sources (from the section above) show that Telesur is a state-owned propaganda outlet similar to Sputnik (RSP entry) and Press TV (RSP entry), and should be considered generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 23:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4. In addition to my above comment: Telesur is unquestionably partisan, and all of its statements should be attributed. Editors should take care to avoid using Telesur to add content that constitutes undue weight, especially when more reliable sources are available. — Newslinger talk 12:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Option 4 per SandyGeorgia's evidence that Telesur publishes false or fabricated information. — Newslinger talk 06:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. This is akin to Press TV. Per RSF, in the very low ranked Venezuela - "Arbitrary arrests and violence against reporters by the police and intelligence services reached a record level in 2017." - which is extra-legal. In terms of legal framework - "A 2010 law provides for sanctions in the event of any content “calling the legitimately constituted authority into question.” This has led to arbitrary arrests and defamation prosecutions.". Any factual un-biased reporting from within Venezuela is close to impossible - and is surely impossible for this state-funded propaganda outlet. I will note one significant exception - Telesur is probably reliable (as Press TV and RT/Sputnik respectively) for the views of the current (and contested) Venezuelan regime. Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Propaganda arm of the government, notable for slanted and false reporting about Venezuela. (Note that option 4 as written is unfair to the Daily Mail, a for-profit British tabloid that is not the propaganda arm of a government and which operates in a country with a free press.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 It is correct that bias is not, in and of itself, a reason to consider a source unreliable. But when that source distorts info, makes up facts and slander people to serve that bias, then it's not reliable. Not because of the bias, but because of the things done to serve that bias. And Telesur has crossed that line and burnt the bridges several times. Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 I am still to see definitive proof they actually make up stories rather then repeat stupidity created by others. Until we decide (on a Wikipedia wide level) that biased alone if a valid reason to reject a source I cannot accept it as one to reject this source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I found this article explaining how Telesur's reporting of Argentina's problem has not been only ideology, but also plain false information, problem that worsened with Macri's decision to stop Telesur's funding. The examples of these news includes reporting that Mauricio Macri increased gas and tap water tariffs threefold, that his administration was releasing repressors from the military dictatorship and mistaking two important historic dates. This may not be precisely the proof you may look for, but I think it helps to show a pattern and that problem not only goes with Venezuela, but also Argentina possibly other countries; not only because of bias or omission, but also because of false information. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 Seems pretty clear that they routinely publish misleading/false information. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 Burrobert (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 emijrp (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 Pamrel (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• The closing administrator should assign zero weight to the three posts above, which give no rationale whatsoever. Neutrality^talk 17:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 It would be a mistake to blacklist TeleSUR when the need for Venezuelan-sourced news is at an all time high. Given the crisis, I'm amazed that their reporting has suffered relatively little. The comparisons to BBC and CBC seem apt. Connor Behan (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• "the need for Venezuelan-sourced news" has zero bearing in determining reliability of a source. We assess a source's reliability on their reception/acceptance in the real world, and especially by whether they have a reputation for accuracy (or inaccuracy) and strong editorial controls (or lack thereof). We don't make decisions on the reliability of sources based on subjective/arbitrary considerations about our "need" for them. Neutrality^talk 18:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 - It's the state media of a dictatorship. Not independent. Echoes state propaganda. Examples of this are legion, to choose one here's this piece on how food shortages are really the fault of "Venezuela's traditional elite". Infamously, when Venezuelan branches of McDonald's ran out of french fries they published an article accusing McDonald's of making "economic war" on Venezuela. The only reason I'm not proposing this as a Option 4 vote is that i don't think a special category for the Daily Mail should exist, but if you want to count this as an Option 4 vote, be my guest. FOARP (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 Richard Stallman left the TeleSUR advisory board in 2011 calling it a "boring propaganda machine"[2] and TeleSUR has only went more extreme after the current crisis in Venezuela. However, I don't think edit filters should be added that easily and the source might be useful in attributing the official Maduro position. --Pudeo (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3: On the one hand, it used to be more reliable than it is now, before previous sponsors and board members withdrew and with previous staff members. For example, earlier reports from Ecaudor were good. And it is generally reliable for sourcing statements of the Maduro government. These facts point towards option 2, careful use with attribution, avoiding it for reporting on opposition, demonstrations and other aspects of the current crisis. On the other hand, numerous examples of actual fake news and disinformation rather than simply bias presented in this thread point more towards option 4. So I think the middle position of option 3 is best. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Reading through StopFake, I found that they contacted UNICEF about Telesur claims surrounding the Donbas conflict, with the UN office in Ukraine criticizing Telesur saying that their statements in their work "do not correspond to reality".----ZiaLater (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  Putting example of charge that Telesur not only plagiarized a photo, it altered it to lie. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 For the same reason as VA. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

To be checked

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.telesurtv.net&title=Special%3ALinkSearch
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.telesurenglish.net&title=Special%3ALinkSearch

Closure

• As this RfC has run for over 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Telesur. — Newslinger talk 06:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: National Enquirer

Should the National Enquirer be deprecated as a source, with an edit filter implemented to warn editors attempting to use it as a reference? — Newslinger talk 15:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. The National Enquirer (RSP entry) has a longstanding reputation for publishing false and fabricated information. The tabloid heavily focuses on living persons, and its editorial practices (which are currently receiving plenty of news coverage) show that its interests are not aligned with providing accurate reports. Earlier today, I removed inappropriate citations of this source from seven biographies. An edit filter would eliminate the possibility that a National Enquirer citation slips through undetected, as it would warn the editor who tries to add the citation and record a public log of every edit that triggers it. — Newslinger talk 15:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• No (ec) While I feel all celebrity gossip should be deprecated, I also note that on medical issues and science articles based on press releases, for example, all media sources rely heavily on press releases, and thus the NatEnq is precisely as "reliable" as the New York Times. The deprecate every source one does not like business should cease, in my honest opinion. Collect (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  WP:MEDRS sets a higher threshold of reliability than WP:RS, but WP:MEDRS only applies to biomedical information in articles. Although both the National Enquirer and The New York Times generally fail WP:MEDRS, The New York Times generally meets WP:RS, while National Enquirer falls far short of this guideline. Reliability is a spectrum, not a binary metric, and the National Enquirer is far enough on the unreliable end of the spectrum to justify its deprecation. — Newslinger talk 07:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I am not even sure it really pretends not to tell outright falsehoods.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• It Depends - The problem is that, hidden away among all the sensationalism and outright fabrication, the Enquirer occasionally publishes quality journalism (probably the most well known example was it’s coverage of the John Edwards sex scandle... which was seriously considered for a Pulitzer). So... even if the consensus is to (generally) depreciate, we are going to have to allow for (specific) exceptions. Discourage, but NOT ban. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Eh...kinda I'm with Blueboar. The Enquirer has occasionally gotten the scoop on stories that later turned out to be generally true, and their novel investigations did turn up newsworthy stuff. However, absent verification from some other source, I would strongly discourage the use of the National Enquirer as a sole source of record for anything, even the stuff they accidentally get right, I would only use information from the Enquirer that was independently confirmed elsewhere. I don't find that they are terribly concerned with truth, but will publish true things if it serves their goals. I think the sort of outright ban is a bad idea here, but I would use them very sparingly, and only when other sources are also cited that confirm their findings. --Jayron32 20:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes The current news cycle has provided us with a story of AMI, the company that owns the National Enquirer, attempting to blackmail Jeff Bezos over the Washington Post's coverage of the political biases (pro-Trump and pro-Saudi) of the National Enquirer. Ronan Farrow says they've also tried to blackmail him. The National Enquirer did get the John Edwards thing right, but I attribute that to a stopped clock being right twice a day more than good journalistic ethos. And remember, Edwards is (was?) a Democrat. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes If we have a similar filter for the UK's Daily Mail, we certainly need one for this "news publication." I never thought I'd have much sympathy for the worlds's richest man, but I do now. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes I've always thought it was barely two steps above Weekly World News, which we shouldn't have to depreciate because, well, it's Weekly World News. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, but... - It's clearly not a generally reliable source and is already de facto deprecated. While the essay WP:PUS says "The more extreme tabloids such as the National Enquirer should never be used, as most stories in them are intentional hoaxes", I'm not convinced never is justified. While a warning would be reasonable, it should make it obvious that deprecation isn't an outright ban on use but that its use is generally discouraged. The note in the Daily Mail warning is pretty reasonable: Note: There may be occasional exceptions to this rule (such as when the Daily Mail itself is the topic being discussed). If you do believe that your edit is an exception, then you may resubmit it by clicking "Publish changes" again. Sometimes one may want to be able to say "the National Enquirer said x" and reference the date, issue, page and so on, but the number of times one is going to justified in doing that is low. --tronvillain (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, I'll echo the comments above. At this point, if the National Enquirer somehow gets something right, we need another reliable source discussing it. This "source" simply cannot be trusted and this proposal is a wise move. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes they publish obvious and not so obvious hoaxes and have for years. A good hoax contains elements of truth which explains why some of what they wrote is true. They are entertainment and about as reliable as General Hospital would be for medical advice. Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  At least General Hospital doesn't outright fabricate most of its stories or extort Jeff Bezos. Alexa, play Despacito — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 03:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes It's already deprecated as unreliable, no point not telling people that in a filter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. It's worse than Breitbart and the Daily Mail. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 03:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes: National Enquirer is entertainment, not news medium. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Yes Enquiring minds want to know why we wouldn't. (I was thinking about starting a deprecation RfC on The Sun (United Kingdom) (NA version) for some time, so I'm not surprised someone else did) SemiHypercube 03:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. The National Enquirer is only used in 13 articles as of now (see Special:Search/insource:"nationalenquirer.com"). I see no evidence that editors are adding it to articles. A filter is unnecessary as it would rarely be triggered. feminist (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  I've removed or replaced the citations that are obviously inappropriate ([4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]). While I expect many National Enquirer citations to be reverted by recent changes patrollers, some do slip through, and the edit filter's logging feature would be useful for future maintenance. — Newslinger talk 06:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  And even if you included these uses, that's only 20 articles citing National Enquirer as a source. Hardly a number which warrants an exceptional filter. feminist (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The low current usage is not necessary a reason to stop the filter being applied, the filter works happily if its busy or not. I can see no harm adding another well known mostly always junk source to a pile of equally rubbish sources. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC) i just read Peter Gulutzan's comment below

I've published a query on Wikimedia's Quarry tool that returns all of the edit summaries mentioning the National Enquirer, which shows that the National Enquirer has been cited in many more articles, but most of the links have been removed by other editors. (Note: Don't rely on the number of rows in the results. Not every result is related to a citation of the National Enquirer, but many of them are. Also, this query doesn't include edits related to citations of the National Enquirer that have edit summaries like "Remove unreliable source" that don't mention the National Enquirer.) Ideally, I would have preferred to run a search on the actual contents of article edits, but the text table is not available on Quarry. A more precise query using the revision table also timed out after hitting the 30-minute execution time limit. — Newslinger talk 01:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Paging through those results it is far from clear that the majority of them are related to NaEnq, still less to deleting NaEnq references. Many of them are simply using NaEnq as a derogatory ("this is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer"), or describing edits about NaEnq that are not clearly deletions ("←Redirected page to National Enquirer"). Without evidence of a significant problem warranting the drastic solution of a filter, how does this ban pass WP:CREEP? FOARP (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Many of the results do indeed show removals of National Enquirer citations ("rv, this saga includes the naming of the alleged couple by the National Enquirer", "rm National Enquirer ref per wp:blp and wp:rl; ce", etc.). The query demonstrates that there were more citations of the National Enquirer than the ones that are currently present in articles. It is not comprehensive and not precisely scoped for reasons I mentioned above. This RfC does not propose a "ban" or any changes to the policies and guidelines, as I have explained in my response to your comment below. — Newslinger talk 11:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This RfC does propose overriding a guideline. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it does not. This RfC requests enforcement of Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Questionable sources through Wikipedia:Edit filter. — Newslinger talk 12:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

An automated filter is not required to enforce a guideline. FOARP (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• No. Where else will I get quality sourced news such as "Lee Harvey Oswald’s Secret CIA Contact After Assassination"? 06:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  Note to closer: This is a Wikipedia:Humor.. okay? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 06:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly No. The damn National Enquirer is a strange yellow bird. It indeed serves a diet of sensationalism sprinkled with doses of pure fantasy (so pure, that it's difficult to imagine someone that takes items such as Elvis sightings as true). But it occasionally serves up a dish of extraordinary journalistic investigation that scoops all the rest of the media and has wider and serious implications. Such finds include not just the John Edwards extramarital affair that effectively ended the senator's presidential aspirations or the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's daughter that forced events in her campaign, but the discovery of O. J. Simpson lying about never owning Bruno Magli shoes, and many other similar finds. We must make a distinction here between the Enquirer and similar yellows, such as Weekly World News or The Sun in the UK which have yet to publish one single item worthy of reproduction except for humor or irony and the Enquirer. (I find it strange that there is no deprecation yet of The Sun.) It is sufficient and, of course, necessary to have the Enquirer placed under a formal warning about its unreliability in general but we should permit its use at the discretion and consensus of editors. To effectively ban it outright as a source would be like throwing out the proverbial baby along with the bath water. -The Gnome (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• The Sun was deprecated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 254 § RfC: The Sun. This RfC is not advocating for a ban (i.e. blacklisting), but "a formal warning about its unreliability in general" as you have recommended. The format of the warning is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources, and you are welcome to submit your opinions and proposals. — Newslinger talk 09:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd support a a formal warning about the subject publication's unreliability in general, as I already said. If this is the only purpose of this RfC I'd support the proposal. Otherwise, no. And thanks for the heads up about The Sun. I was not aware of its deprecation with which, as it happens, I very much agree. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It is interesting to see people defending the National Enquirer by saying "it sometimes does useful work", whilst condemning newspapers which have also done about the same amount of useful work that they apparently just aren't aware of. It was the Mail that originally broke the story about Chris Huhne. It was the Sun that broke the Plebgate story. I get the feeling that North American editors are only vaguely aware that UK tabloids do actually have real journalists working for them and -shock- don't just make everything up, with the same issue vice-versa for UK-based editors and US-based tabloids. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• No per Feminist. There are no convincing arguments that we should make an exception here, and there is no broad consensus on this "just in case" trend. I have opposed (and still oppose) deprecating Occupy Democrats for the same reason, as all the time spent on this RfC could've been spent removing references to these sources. I am also of the opinion that these edit filters ought to be temporary, and support repealing each ban when a source's usage (edit filter hits) becomes extremely rare. As new users become more and more aware of WP:RSP, these edit filters will become less and less useful. That's a good thing. wumbolo ^^^ 17:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  Having edit filters be temporary sounds reasonable to me. If this proposed edit filter does not receive enough hits on a trial basis, I would support removing it. — Newslinger talk 01:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  In WT:RSN § Option 1: One template for all sources, there is emerging support to handle all deprecated sources with a single edit filter, which would make the performance impact and maintenance overhead of each individual deprecation negligible. The only remaining question is on the National Enquirer's reliability. — Newslinger talk 02:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• No on reasoning of Feminist and Wumbolo. We should only be seeking blacklist/filters if we have a routine problem with editors trying to add that source repeatedly. We did (and still do) have that with Daily Mail, but I think even most IPs recognize the NE as pure tabloid and avoid it as a source. This is a solution seeking a problem. --Masem (t) 18:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• WP:AF "Because edit filters check every edit in some way, filters that are tripped only rarely are discouraged." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that many editors don't consider the time and resource costs of an edit filter. Is there a way to quantify this?

The deprecation process could be refined to allow a filter for these sources on an as-needed basis instead of applying it permanently. In most cases the reliability of the source will not change but the need for a filter will come and go. –dlthewave ☎ 22:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

That "discouraged" wording is due to this edit by Samwalton9. I don't know whether it refers to costs. All I know is that essays or information pages or RfCs override guidelines more often than seems necessary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes very subpar publication that we already should avoid citing in the first place. Dubious tabloids like this have no place here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Heck Yes - Do we give excuses to any rotten-rag tabloids any chance for being inserted into articles? The answer is No. Also, Don't worry about performance. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes -- articles should be built on quality sources, and the evidence shows that this source is far from quality. MPS1992 (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Given the way this tabloid has been thrust into the limelight with recent events, there is a real possibility that attempts by editors (particularly new editors with little to no knowledge of RSP) to use it as a source will substantially increase. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Save the editors here some time and effort debating over the reliability of a tabloid...DN (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes – There are plenty of better sources available for "scoops". If a "scoop" by the National Enquirer amounts to anything, you can be sure that there will be a more reliable source to cover the story.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• No They just demonstrated an ability to get stories that no one else would get and now you want to ban them? Complain about their allegedly unethical method all you want but CNN did the same thing. Connor Behan (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes the practice of deprecating perennially unreliable sources with an edit filter that produces a warning cannot possibly harm the project, and stands to improve it significantly. As with all such sources, exceptions may occur, and this proposal would not impact those cases where using the Enquirer as a source is permitted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• No No WP:NEWSORG should be the target of blanket deprecation that functions essentially as a ban on using it. This also goes for the Sun and the Daily Mail. Are they great sources? No. Are they potentially useful sources in some cases? Yes. Editors protesting that the sources that have been blanket-deprecated can still be used need to see what happens if you try to use them (DS notices, apparently-automatic deletion without even bothering to read the article, etc.). Finally, all these deprecations brought lately fail WP:CREEP, which is an actually policy (or explanatory supplement to a policy) and therefore ought not to be ignored (but is again and again) - specifically it requires that the proposal be a solution to an actual existing problem ("not a hypothetical or perceived one") and that the proposal if implemented is "likely to make a real, positive difference", and neither of these have been shown. FOARP (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  "News organization" is a very charitable description of a supermarket tabloid like the National Enquirer. WP:ABOUTSELF permits all deprecated sources to be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and in my experience, editors have honored this exception for questionable sources. Discretionary sanctions boxes were discussed in The Sun's RfC, but no such template for deprecated sources actually exists. This RfC does not propose any modifications to existing policies and guidelines, and every RfC seeks to establish some form of consensus that editors are expected to reference and follow in the future. — Newslinger talk 12:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As was pointed out by User:The Gnome above, National Enquirer has uncovered stories that "include not just the John Edwards extramarital affair that effectively ended the senator's presidential aspirations or the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's daughter that forced events in her campaign, but the discovery of O. J. Simpson lying about never owning Bruno Magli shoes". However, under this blanket deprecation, we should not cite the National Enquirer as sources for articles about these subjects. WP:ABOUTSELF is not a cure-all, not even nearly. And this still leaves the WP:CREEP issues (which, again, is an actual honest-to-god supplement to a policy) which everyone keeps ignoring in these deprecation proposals - what is the real problem that this ban is directed to addressing? How is this proposal "likely to make a real, positive difference"? We already have policies in place regarding reliable sources, why aren't those enough? FOARP (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This RfC does not propose a "ban". In this discussion, you and other editors have made multiple comparisons between the National Enquirer and the Daily Mail. The community has decided in two separate RfCs (in 2017 and 2019) that the Daily Mail should be deprecated. This proposal seeks to apply the same treatment to a similarly unreliable source. WP:CREEP applies to text in policies and guidelines, and not to their application. — Newslinger talk 02:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:DUCK, this is a ban because the effect is to notify patrolling editors that a reference to the NaEnq has been made, and the response is almost universally to delete the reference - hence, a ban. The previous DM RfCs were wrongly decided in my view and per WP:KOOLAID I don't see any reason to stop saying so though I don't intend to belabour the point. Finally, stating "WP:CREEP applies to text in policies and guidelines, and not to their application" is practically the definition of a formalist argument - the text decides what the application will be. It's also wrong because WP:CREEP is about creating new instructions, and most definitely about whether a filter (i.e., a new instruction) should be put into place at all. FOARP (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

From the opening paragraph of WP:CREEP: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist to explain community norms for all readers, especially those unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates. It is important that such pages remain easy to understand and in line with community consensus." Edit filter warnings don't elongate existing policy or guideline pages. They appear only when needed on the editing page to caution editors against making edits that violate existing policies and guidelines (including the reliable sources guideline), and they are targeted to the specific edit. This RfC doesn't propose any kind of change to the reliable sources guideline. To counter a point you've made before, explanatory supplements (such as WP:CREEP) have the "not been thoroughly vetted by the community" label, and are ranked lower than guidelines ("a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow"). — Newslinger talk 21:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

FOARP is correct that the filter is an added instruction, no matter how many times you make the irrelevant response that your proposal does not "change" a guideline. It is (a) against WP:AF because more than one editor has pointed to how rare edits seem to be; (b) against WP:RS because it says we should base edits on context; (c) against WP:DR because RfCs are for dispute resolution and you didn't show that there had been a dispute (or WP:RFC is about "making changes" but you insist you're not proposing any changes); (d) confusingly explained because your claim that warnings will only be "targeted to the specific edit" will only be true if your own proposal (which makes all warnings point to your essay) fails; (e) confusingly proposed because you wrote "This proposal seeks to apply the same treatment [as what was done to the Daily Mail] ..." but that is not what you wrote in the proposal. But thanks for admitting that explanatory supplements have low status (in fact they have essay status), which means your multiple references on this thread to an explanatory supplement ("RSP entry") are equally worthless. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact that edit filters don't change any guideline is absolutely relevant, because WP:CREEP advises against introducing instructions when they negatively impact the readability of existing policy and guideline pages. The proposed edit filter does not do that. "WP:CREEP" is not a substitute for actual arguments. Instruction can be helpful, even if long – when clearly and accurately representing community consensus. Addressing your actual arguments:

1. This proposal is not against WP:AF. There is considerable support for implementing edit filter warnings for all deprecated sources with a single edit filter at WT:RSN § Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources. When implemented, that edit filter will certainly be triggered regularly.
2. This proposal is not against WP:RS. The proposed edit filter warnings at WT:RSN § Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources clearly indicate to editors who trigger the filter that deprecated sources may be used in certain situations. Editors who believe that the context justifies the use of the National Enquirer may click "Publish changes" one more time to submit their edits.
3. This proposal is not against WP:DR, as I have no dispute with another editor. According to WP:RFC, "RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages." This RfC proposes changes to Wikipedia's edit filters.
4. By "targeted to the specific edit", I meant that the edit filter warning would only be displayed when an editor attempts to submit an edit that adds a citation of the National Enquirer. These edits are "targeted" by the proposed edit filter. Editors who don't make such edits would not see the edit filter warning.
5. The Daily Mail is recognized as a deprecated source. This RfC proposes the deprecation of the National Enquirer.

Links to WP:RSP in my comments add context to the sources I mention. Any entries on that page are backed by previous discussions on this noticeboard. If you object to the classification of any source I have mentioned, you may challenge the existing consensus with a new discussion or RfC on this noticeboard, which will be factored into WP:RSP. The WP:RSP list has been backed by two RfCs at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 59 § RfC: Should this guideline contain a link to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources? and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 60 § RfC: Should Template:Supplement be added to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?, despite your opposition to both. ​— Newslinger talk 00:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe what I said shows this RfC is invalid, you don't, we could argue further if others care. By the way I forgot "(e) Against WP:RSN instruction 'This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.'" Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• No, not because I think the NaEnq is a worth while rag but instead because in general I am uncomfortable with the widespread deprecation of sources. It seems like as soon as the Dailmail was deprecated there has been a huge push to wholesale ban sources. We already have a process where editors can challenge particular RSs. One of the issues I see is that occasionally these sources might actually get something right but rather than letting the editors involved in an article decide we are going to use a generalized discussion that hasn't reviewed the particular article in question. Are we really solving a problem or risking throwing out babies in bath water. I would personally be very likely to challenge any controversial claim attributed to the NaEnq but because I'm uncomfortable with this deprecation process in general I oppose this one (and likely almost all other examples as well). Springee (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The DM should never have been deprecated in this way and proposals like this one were exactly what was warned about when the DM ban was proposed. There is no essential difference between the DM in the UK and NaEnq in the US. Both are trashy rags that also do real journalism occasionally. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, deprecate. Add filter if standard practice Newslinger, you ask the tough questions... The strongest argument against deprecating this source, made by The Gnome, is that the National Enquirer occasionally produces factual material, unlike other similar publications that almost exclusively produce non-factual/non-supported stories. That sounds like a very compelling reason to not trust this source because they have a temperamental disposition towards verifying correctness. As far as the edit filter, I support if it that's how other such deprecated sources are treated. Ender and Peter 20:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. For decades it has been a definitive example of an unreliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - Reasoning/caveats similar to tronvillain's. That it occasionally gets a journalistic scoop means we can wait until other, better publications pick up on that scoop and apply their standards that have a better track record. How are we to tell, except in hindsight, which are the good ones from among the garbage? It is the other sources that tell us which were good in hindsight, so let's just use those. Occasional use to supplement those other sources, sure, but that's within the very few uses acknowledged in this "deprecation" concept (or should be). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• NO - no case or logic basis presented, just someone voicing personal and generic dislike into an official enemies list that has no policy or other controls is no way to run things. This weakens RS basis to consider specific cases in context by making a generality condemning or blessing whole organizations rather than individual instances. I’m with FOARP as well that UK papers seems already given short shrift — and Canadian and Australian and anything not from the United States northeast... and now “lesser” newspapers ... All of this seems to be endangering NPOV ability to present views in proportion to their true prominence and actual acceptance. At the very least, censorship nominations should be forced to be more than a trivial effort. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see any credible claims of bias against publications from the UK, Canada, and Australia. While the Daily Mail (RSP entry) and The Sun (RSP entry) are deprecated, editors consider BBC (RSP entry), The Guardian (RSP entry), and The Daily Telegraph (RSP entry) generally reliable. Canadian and Australian publications are not discussed on this noticeboard frequently enough to have entries on the perennial sources list. This means that they're uncontroversial, and doesn't suggest that they're unreliable. There are US sources not based in the Northeastern US area, including the Los Angeles Times (RSP entry), Deseret News (RSP entry), and many local publications, that are considered generally reliable. Many US-based publications (including the National Enquirer, which contradicts your point) are based in the Northeastern US because New York City and Washington, D.C. are the media and political capitals of the US, and publications from that area are not afforded any special consideration with respect to the WP:RS guideline. The proposed edit filter does not prevent any editor from adding citations of the National Enquirer into articles. — Newslinger talk 12:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

That broadsheet newspapers and the national broadcaster don't get deprecated doesn't prove anything. We're talking about borderline cases where North American editors have at least been accused of taking an extremely simplistic view of UK sources (i.e., all our tabloids are garbage) but insisting on nuance when it comes to e.g., Fox News. FOARP (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This particular RfC proposes the deprecation of a North American tabloid. — Newslinger talk 22:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. I'm surprised this is a question. If NE is reliable, then what isn't? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecated? Yes. It's the worst tabloid in the U.S., full of lies. Blacklisted or absolutely 100% prohibited? I don't know about that; apparently according to some folks here it might have some use. Softlavender (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. The Enquirer deliberately and unabashedly publishes falsehoods and is not generally considered "reliable" in virtually any instance. In those very rare instances that the Enquirer does score a true journalistic coup, it is quickly picked up by other reliable sources, so it is not needed.Jacona (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

So you think it's OK to cite sources citing the NaEnq, but not the NaEnq itself? FOARP (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• No. We don't need an RfC every time someone finds a dodgy source. There is no evidence that this source is being used widely (see discussion above) or that editors are fighting over it. Just apply WP:RS the normal way. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, since it is and always has been made up nonsense about celebrities, interspersed with just enough actual facts to get people to buy it when they're in line at the supermarket. It's one of the worst things in print in the United States. It's beyond tabloid journalism, though not quite as deep into fiction-as-news as Weekly World News is. That said, I agree with Finnusertop that we do not need an RfC about every un-source; just list them for banning and don't worry about it unless someone objects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - This has never been an acceptable source, and only rarely has someone been foolish enough to attempt to use it, but we should formalize the depecration. Neutrality^talk 20:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)`

RfC: Venezuelanalysis

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

Again, I will suggest the four options:

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

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

• Option 1 My impression of this source is that it's a reliable left-wing source. It's sympathetic to the Bolivarian Revolution, but it is more than willing to publish stories that paint the government in a poor light,[11] and I don't see any evidence that they've ever intentionally published false information. I see that the Wikipedia page for them has claims that could imply that a significant amount of content on the site comes directly from the Venezuelan government, but the pages that the citations go to are pages on Venezuelanalysis that 1) in some cases don't appear to exist anymore 2) were clearly labeled links to specific pages on the equivalent of a FAQ page and are completely separate from its actual factual reporting. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2: Bias or political leaning it not enough, does it have a poor reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4. As, per their about, much of the team is based in Venezula itself and since Venezula uses violence and legal intimidation against journalists operating inside Venezula to produce pro-regime pieces - RSF Venezuela - it is impossible for this site to accurately publish anything about the regime. Furthermore, the site itself does not appear to be much beyond a WP:SPS - it is a collection of pro-Chavez activists publishing their (+ pitches, which they state they accept) views on Venezula. There no indication that this little referenced website has a reputation for accuracy, and their openly stated aims (essentially - Chavez propaganda) would seem to be rather against such a reputation.Icewhiz (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 per similar reasons as Telesur. Venezuelanalysis consist mostly in opinion articles, like Aporrea, meaning it is mostly a blog. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)— Jamez42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• NOTA See my TASS reasoning below. Collect (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3, unreliable except for reporting on positions taken by Maduro/chavismo, except that even there, the reporting is distorted or they lie. Here is an very recent example (very similar to Telesur tactics, also Venezuela-controlled propaganda) of a blatant distortion/lie.

  Distortion #1. On 6 February, Venezuelanalysis published this piece, which (among other distortions) includes a map claiming that most of the world supports Nicolas Maduro in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. That map includes all of Africa in support of Maduro (something claimed by Venezuelan officials on 31 January). That is not only not true, but the African Union was so troubled by the Venezuelan misrepresentation of their position that they held a protest in front of a Venezuelan embassy, well before the Venezuelanalysis piece was published.[12][13][14] Note that their map also includes countries like Norway, Switzerland and India which have most decidedly stated their neutrality. Contrast the Venezuelanalysis claim to the scrupulously maintained and well sourced map and country list on Wikipedia. Venezuelanalysis furthered this lie/distortion even after they must have known it contained falsehooods.

  I will add more as I find time-- this is merely the most recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 per User:SandyGeorgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 08:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 Clearly unreliable, per others. I am undecided whether a filter is necessary or not. 252 uses is not a lot, but not insignificant either. feminist (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2-3, pretty biased. Generally its "news" section reports are based on other published sources which it filters through its particular political lens, so far better to use the original sources. It fairly accurately reports the statements of the government and of foreign governments backing it, so could be used as a source for that, although for other things it should be used with caution and attribution. It also publishes a lot of opinion pieces under "opinion and analysis" which should definitely not be used for factual reporting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 5 - more reliable than North American news sources I happen to know first hand that CTV (Canada) has falsified reports of Canadian pro-Maduro protests to frame them as pro-Guaido. If our yardstick is "never distorts facts about levels of support" North American news sources fail on that front. Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment We should avoid whataboutism, reliability of other outlets doesn't have anything to do with the reliability of Venezuelanalysis. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment My point is that this is a double-standard. I have repeatedly said that I don't think Wikipedia should be using newsmedia sources for much of anything and that, especially in the case of unfolding political crises, we should be waiting until the crisis resolves to address what historians have to say about the situation. So Option 1 doesn't fit because I don't think any news source meets option 1. With that said, the other three options are problems in that they're implying that this source is less reliable than western news sources such as CTV, which I cited as an explicit example of Western media providing counterfactual and propagandistic reporting regarding Venezuela. So don't @ me with the tired trope of whataboutism when I point out that you're asking that we treat Canadian and American media's propagandistic slant as reliable but not that of Venezuela. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

But then, I sometimes think I'm the only person editing political articles on Wikipedia who really cares about WP:NOTNEWS. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 (first choice) or option 3 (second choice). Venezuelanalysis is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet (see Bolivarian propaganda § Venezuelanalysis). Co-founder of Venezuelanalysis Gregory Wilpert is married to Carol Delgado Arria, who was Venezuela's consul-general in New York under Hugo Chávez and the Ambassador of Venezuela to the Government of Ecuador under Nicolás Maduro. Combined with Wilpert's admission that Venezuelanalysis has been receiving government funding, the conflict of interest is extremely clear, and Venezuelanalysis should be designated as a biased or opinionated source, as well as having all of its claims examined for undue weight before inclusion into an article. SandyGeorgia's example pushes me to support option 4 as a first choice. — Newslinger talk 23:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 - whilst the website definitely has a bias and additional considerations should be made when using the site as a source on, for example, the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, it doesn't seem enough to me to consider it WP:QUESTIONABLE. MrClog (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - Coverage of Venezuela is extremely partisan and marking VA as unreliable will stifle discussion. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

We already have editors trying to delete the source from non-controversial comments on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds, citing source POV entirely unrelated to the topic. This is a perfect example of why these attempts to vote a POV contrary to the American hegemonic one off the island cause actual problems for the project (removal of sources from statements of undisputed fact). Per WP:YESPOV a source having a POV does not disqualify it. Again, I dislike the use of media and media-like sources for current issues. That goes for Venezuelanalysis, Granma, Telesur and China Daily to precisely the same extent that it goes for Washington Post, New York Times, CBC, Huffington, etc. But if the consensus of Wikipedia is that media sources, with their biases and tendency to interpret the world through those biased lenses, are allowable as sources, then the systemic treatment of Leftist sources as "unreliable" and Centrist and Conservative sources as "reliable" is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4: As per the info provided by Icewhiz and Sandy Georgia. Having a POV is not a problem, but if accuracy is dismissed to serve that POV's agenda, then it is a problem. And I wouldn't bother about the fate of the articles about the Venezuelan crisis: it is a topic of international interest, and we have loads of reliable sources covering every new development in it. We don't need Venezuelanalysis to write a good and complete article about it (or even a featured one, once things come to an end and the article gets a bit less busy). Cambalachero (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 per commented above. It is a propaganda site of the Venezuelan government, which, since the arrival of Nicolás Maduro to power, is engaged more and more in producing fake news to hide accurate data on the economic, political and social crisis. --Oscar_. (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

To be checked

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fvenezuelanalysis.com%2F&title=Special%3ALinkSearch

RfC: TASS

Sorry for the multiple posts. Came across TASS lately as well. Only a small comment; I've seen in past discussions that TASS has been used only when attribution is used.

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

Again, thank you and this will be my final RfC for some time.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3: But I am not sure bias alone is enough for deprecation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3: They've promoted Russian spin during MH370MH17 and the conflict in Crimea and Donbass (as well as in other times). This is owned by the Russian federal government. They generally should be avoided as a source, with the sole exception that they are quite reliable for reporting Russian government views - which should be attributed of course. Icewhiz (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Corrected wrong MH flight.Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• This seriously needs to stop. A Russian government-owned news agency is more likely to present the Russian narrative on international crises involving Russia than your average non-Russian news agency. There's nothing particularly revealing about this.

I assume you meant MH17? If so, here are the first two TASS reports showing up on Google that have covered the affair: [15] and [16]. Do you see anything out of the ordinary in these? And by "ordinary" I'm referring to the mainstream news sources that are considered reliable on Wikipedia.

Here you'll find all the TASS reports on MH17 published between 16 July and 31 December 2014, and here is the Crimea-related material. The stuff that I've found, on my part, was well attributed to senior officials and people with a certain level of expertise on the subject. But I don't mind being proven wrong, so you (and anyone else here) are more than welcome to do so. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

TASS, for instance, spread the Carlos/SU-25 conspiracy theory regarding the MH17 shoot down.Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians, and Political Manipulation on Social Media, edited by Samuel C. Woolley, Philip N. Howard, page 55. Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. This appears to be the TASS report in question, at least according to RFE/RL.[17] First of all, does the TASS article have an English language version promoting this theory? I'm genuinely asking, because tass.ru is probably not the same as tass.com, same way Al Jazeera's Arabic and English services are not the same in terms of content.

And secondly, this is how the tass.ru article translates on Google: "Currently on the Internet, users are actively quoting a Twitter post that was made by a Spanish air traffic controller. From the profile of the author in the social network, it follows that he works at the Kiev airport Borispol." There appears to be no attempt in the article whatsoever to present the conspiracy theory as a statement of fact. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

My understanding (based on when I was really reading TASS quite a bit - which is dated - haven't done TASS real-time since 2015 or thereabouts - for the Donbass it was interesting, for Syria less so most of the time) is that the English TASS is a selective (not all items) and delayed translation (a few hours) of the Russian TASS. Back when I consumed TASS - I mainly did so for real-time releases and read the Russian original. Real-time obviously isn't a concern for Wikipedia (though the main reason I really see for looking at TASS is for real-time same-hour releases) - and the translation quality to English (of those pieces they translate) is (or was) pretty good.Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

As another example of 2014 Donbass reporting - most outlets viewed (and still view) the Russian "aid conveys" rather suspiciously - e.g. [18][19][20][21][22][23]. TASS, on the other hand, was reporting breathlessly on each stop the conveys made and on the humanitarian aspect - e.g. [24][25]. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• NOTA Tass has been an official arm of Russia in the past - thus is fully reliable for statements of fact as stated by that government, and usable for opinions presented, attributed and cited as opinions. Same as p[retty much every source. Collect (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1, per my above reply. I have yet to see evidence pointing to a clear pattern of wrongdoing by TASS. IMO it's far more tolerable than Sputnik and even RFE/RL (which is considered reliable here). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 or Option 3: in my opinion sources that are not independent of government in countries with law rank in freedom of press should not be used --Shrike (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 TASS has been widely discussed -- by plenty of RS in fact-- as part of the Russian dezinformatsiya network, coordinating to spread malicious falsehoods in the West. Some sources:
  • here's Kruglak at U-Minnesota [[26]]: the two faces of TASS - one, that of a bona fide news enterprise and the other, that of a propaganda and espionage service.;
  • Watanabe from LSE's paper [here] : A longitudinal content analysis of over 35,000 English-language newswires on the Ukraine crisis published by ITAR-TASS and Interfax clearly showed that ITAR-TASS’s framing of Ukraine was reflecting desirability of pivotal events in the crisis to the Russian government. This result reveals Russia’s strategic use of the state-owned news agency for international propaganda in its ‘hybrid war’, demonstrating the effectiveness of the new approach to news bias.
  • ... I could list more. In summary the RS conclusion is pretty clear : TASS is not a news source, but a tool wielded by a state actor. We should not perpetuate propaganda. No TASS, until it cleans up its act. --Calthinus (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 Seems to fall squarely under WP:BIASED. Prominent government-controlled news agency. Plenty of spin, but apparently not known for fabrication. Eperoton (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 This has been discussed a lot, it falls into the same bracket as other state-owned media of dictatorships (CGTN, Xinhua, PressTV, Granma etc.). It is not independent and thus not reliable. Particularly, the coverage by TASS of the invasion of Crimea echoed the Russian government line that the soldiers there, who we now know (not least because Putin admitted it) to have been Russian soldiers, were "local militia", and it has repeatedly carried the various contradictory conspiracy theories about the shooting down by Russian-backed rebels of MH17. The reason I'm choosing Option 3 here is because I don't think the special category for the Daily Mail should exist (there's no reason why anyone should regard the DM as worse than the state media of a dictatorship), but if you want to count this as a Option 4 vote you can. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Evidence shows that TASS has engaged in disinformation and thus must generally be avoided as a source. A filter does not prevent legitimate use (such as citing the official Russian position) as editors only need to click Save again. feminist (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 – Many editors use TASS as a factual and timely news source regarding information on the Russian space program. Just because, as a government agency, it reflects political views of the Russian government (properly attributed), does not mean it should be deprecated as a WP:RS. Indeed, it would be quite difficult (and biased) to cover events happening in Russia without allowing any reporting by Russian media. Is Agence France Presse next to get axed, because it reflects viewpoints of the French government? Xinhua, because it reflects viewpoints of the Chinese government? PAP because it reflects views of the Polish government? — JFG ^talk 08:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• User:JFG Do you think there is no difference between freedom of press in France and Russia?Also AFP have independent from government editorial board --Shrike (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Freedom of the press in country A or B is not the issue being debated here (although, if you're interested, France does not have a stellar reputation in this domain; ask any French person among your acquaintances). We are examining a particular news agency and trying to ascertain whether what it publishes can be accepted as RS per Wikipedia's own definition at WP:NEWSORG: News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). The policy even quotes the Russian Interfax as a typical reliable news agency. WP:BIASED states that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, as long as editors attribute statements coming from ostensibly biased sources. I'd rank TASS as vastly more reliable than outlets like BuzzFeed News or The Daily Telegraph that get top billing in our WP:Perennial sources catalog. — JFG ^talk 21:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Regarding your concern with sources like BuzzFeed being listed as green, I've previously suggested adding more levels of reliability assessment for RSP, see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Add more levels of reliability?. This proposal did not receive a lot of support. feminist (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3. In addition to examples from Icewhiz (above), Forbes 2015: "authors of many articles and comments are unknown or publish under various pseudonyms", and "they tout fabricated claims from history, which they present as new sensational discoveries". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 as per JFG. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 RS describe TASS as being heavily used as a propaganda tool in Russia's "Hybrid War". Sort of par for the course when it comes to state media from countries with little to no freedom of press. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• OTHER - I’d not choose any of theses except to exclude #4. It’s a Russian POV, has a large prominence with long experience, good editorial performance, has a mild-right bias as far as word choices but bias is not so far as spot blindness, decent on factual material and special expertise on Russia or Russian government... but none of that info about them or looking at their website is leading me to such vague broad options as these, just to excluding #4. (Besides, seems BESTSOURCES in the vicinity, unless you prefer RT? :-) ) I’d tend to bin Tass with VOA or Al Jazeera for official lines and insights on international items. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Your position sounds like Option 2, OK with additional considerations considering their inherent bias. Note that Al Jazzera is listed "green" in our source catalog, as generally reliable with considerations of bias on certain issues. VoA is currently not rated, but generally accepted as an RS, while bearing in mind it represents US policy views. — JFG ^talk 10:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 (or Option 3 as second choice). The academic sources identified by Calthinus clearly establish that TASS is part of the Russian government's dezinformatsiya (disinformation) network. Encyclopedias must rely on better sources. Neutrality^talk 20:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Gawker

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

• Yes. Gawker (RSP entry) is a gossip blog that has no regard for factual reporting, while its opinion articles can still be cited if properly attributed. Even the article Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal cites only one Gawker article and contains 226 other references. Gawker Media have fired journalists for not being clickbait-y enough, and they have had numerous controversies. The worst of the worst "journalists" were ever employed by Gawker. Since the new owner, the Gawker website had controversies again and is doing very poorly. This gossip blog is cited on hundreds of articles, many of them biographies, making me support its deprecation. I've been through the RSN archives and Gawker was always viewed as generally unreliable, generally unusable for WP:DUE material, and especially inappropriate on biographies (if Gawker has any use, it's on biographies so it doesn't have any use). Some blogs previously operated by Gawker Media are considered thoroughly reliable, but that is not relevant here and Gawker.com's unreliability does not help them. If this proposal fails, I wouldn't be surprised if it generated consensus that Gawker should be identified as generally unreliable (red) at WP:RSP. wumbolo ^^^ 09:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes It is just a gossip site that care little or nothing for fact checking.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Is Gawker even still a thing? As far as I know there hasn't been anything published on Gawker since 2016, am I missing something? UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  See "Gawker 2.0 Implodes as Its Only Reporters Quit". wumbolo ^^^ 10:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Gawker is the Web 2.0 analogue to the tabloid journalism publishers that have recently been unfavorably scrutinized on this noticeboard. While Gawker is best known for Bollea v. Gawker, the publication has been sued numerous times for defamation, as shown in "Here are all the people suing Gawker" and "For Gawker, Legal Issues Beyond Hogan". As Gawker focuses on rumors related to living persons, deprecation is appropriate here. Editors should also consider whether an opinion piece from Gawker constitutes undue weight before citing it in an article. — Newslinger talk 13:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - If this is a blog then isn't it already covered by the WP:RSSELF? Do we really need to RfC every possible source regardless of whether there is a real problem to be dealt with? What about WP:CREEP, which tells us only to make instructions where there is a real problem? FOARP (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• It (old Gawker.com) is Deceased That is, it was a blog, and ventured into areas which forced its own closure. It is RS for nihil. "Gawker 2.0" is a legally different site, under Bustle Digital Group. https://splinternews.com/here-are-the-media-chuds-joining-fake-gawker-1831782448 which announced the "new Gawker" as an actual editorial project and no longer a "blog" thus we can not judge such future material as a blog. https://guestofaguest.com/new-york/media/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-gawker so, honestly, we do not know more than "the old Gawker is pretty much deprecated" but no solid basis to deprecate the "new Gawker." Clear? Collect (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• No/Moot I can't really imagine many editors digging through Gawker's carcass for its dubious articles to be used as sources on Wikipedia. After all, it's dead, its brand is very tainted, Bryan Goldberg doesn't seem to have much success relaunching the site (good) – I don't see a need for a filter, but won't necessarily be opposed to one. feminist (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - As noted above, its a tabloid blog with little to no editorial oversight or fact checking. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. Let the dead be at peace. There is no use depreciating something long since made irrelevant (under dubious circumstances one might say). Regardless, such circumstances lead me to conclude that it most likely should be an important primary source for articles such as Peter Thiel. I don't see any sense in depreciating it to be honest since it's not like they are going to write new articles like they used to. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 04:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes – When a source is junk, we must mark it as junk. "Respect for the dead" has no bearing on Gawker's inappropriateness as a Wikipedia source. — JFG ^talk 08:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes: crap sources are crap and just because they're dead doesn't mean that archived versions of them are still crap. SITH (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• No'. No evidence presented to put it in the same category as the Daily Mail and Caller. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, Gawker is not in the same category as DM and DC (which still report factual news most of the time, though without the consistency we need). As a gossip blog Gawker is in an entirely different league, and is much worse than either source. feminist (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• NO - this is covered by WP:BLOG. There is no case made for a ‘deprecation’, which is without policy governance nor obvious effectiveness or benefit. Seems just empty posturing and adding cases increases any difficulty of discussion and further confusion about deprecation. Having a practice that looks like censorship by personal preference or local popularity or hidden reasoning needs a higher bar ... and part of that would be the nomination needs to do some work producing a case showing evidence and policy consideration. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - the DM isn't perfect sure but it's a thousand times better than this tripe!, Gawker is nothing but a blog site and as such IMHO it shouldn't be used here in any form. –Davey2010^Talk 13:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• No'
  per Markbassett, Collect and others. Gawker is not genereally RS, but deprecating it is unnecessary. Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No per Markbassett and Gamaliel. Guettarda (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes ask Hulk Hogan why. Just a blog spouting nonsense in my opinion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No/Meaningless, unless you're talking about the reliability of Gawker's successor blogs, e.g. Kotaku, io9, Jezebel, etc.. Those needs to be separately assessed in individual RfCs, and Kotaku is quite a reputable Gaming media source, albeit it has to be properly attributed per policy. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning no on this, per much of the above. The domain name is someone else now, and I don't see any evidence that people are regularly trying to use the old gossip site as a source here. PS: "blog" is publication format, nothing else. There are plenty of blogs that are reliable sources. What we don't want to see is self-published or user-generated content being used as if secondary sourcing. The former has some limited uses under WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF, and the latter isn't really usable. The various click-bait content farms ("10 Celebs You Didn't Know Were Gay") are basically UGC. They are written by thousands of pittance-paid pseudonymous or anonymous schlock workers with nearly zero editorial oversight. The blogs of major newspapers are written by their journalists and subject to professional editorial review and are within the reputation sphere of their newspapers. That both a major newspaper's blog and a worthless click-bait site are published with blog software is irrelevant. (But being published by a newspaper doesn't magically make a primary opinion piece into a secondary material; this was true before blogs existed – editorials, op-eds, advice columns, and most movie and book reviews are primary sources, because they are opinion pieces not factual research. Same goes for "news" that is just regurgitation of a press release, or nothing but quotations of talking heads and witnesses with no actual WP:AEIS work by the publisher.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  Is the SPLC reliable? It is reliable

  Is the Southern Poverty Law Center really a reliable source? The SPLC called Maajid Nawaz, who is not an anti-Muslim extremist, an anti-Muslim extremist in their "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists", despite the fact that he is a Muslim himself. Nawaz also won a lawsuit against the SPLC for the false claim that he is an "Anti-Muslim Extremist" and they had to publicly apologize because of the error. Also, The SPLC placed a conservative Christian advocacy group called the Family Research Council (FRC) on its "hate map" in 2010 because the FRC oppose same-sex marriage and abortion and as a result of this, a gunman walked into the FRC headquarters two years later and said he wanted to "kill as many as possible" because he saw them on the SPLC's hate map. That's right, the SPLC indirectly caused a shooting because they didn't agree with an advocacy group because of conflicting political views. Lastly, they have smeared many other people they have disagreed with such as Ben Carson and Charles Murray. Source:[27] X-Editor (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  They are an advocacy group as well as being biased and opinionated, but generally fit WP:RSOPINION. That is can be used but should be attributed to them. WP:RSP has a decent write up on them and their history on this board. PackMecEng (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  @PackMecEng: If the SPLC can only be used as a source for opinion when it comes to hate groups, then why does the Gab (social network) article use the SPLC source against gab as a source for the website's active user base when it cannot be used as fact and only as an opinion when it comes to them reporting on hate groups? X-Editor (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  I am not very familiar with the Gab (social network) page but looking it over every time they are used it is not in Wikipedia's voice. It is "The Southern Poverty Law Center characterized" or "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported" which is proper attribution. PackMecEng (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  @PackMecEng: In the infobox of the Gab article, it says there are 19,526 estimated monthly active users, which it gets from the SPLC source, which got those numbers from Storyful. However, Gab said in a January 2019 SEC filing that it has 200,000 active users and Gab has also said that the SPLC's numbers, which they got from Storyful, are wrong. X-Editor (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  The body of the article explains where that info came from, attributing the sources there. If I had to guess why the SEC data is not use it is because that is generally self reported. Though the link you gave does not work so I cannot really check. I will say our article is a little misleading giving the active user number and comparing it to the claimed 850k total user number which can give an incorrect impression. PackMecEng (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  @PackMecEng: Here's the SEC filing, I don't know why the first link is a dead one:https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1709244/000114420419003068/tv511217_partiiandiii.htm Also, if you think the Gab article is misleading, then fix the article so it is less misleading. X-Editor (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  SPLC does good research and many RS report that research. I don't know about the specific piece of data you are asking about. I suggest chasing down the real source the info comes from. Legacypac (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  I got the info from this source:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1771f5a71b62 X-Editor (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Note the section that piece is in — "Opinion." Also note that the author is Marc Thiessen, a well-known partisan conservative who wrote speeches for George W. Bush. While we may consider his opinion relevant for inclusion, it is citable as nothing more than another (quite partisan) opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  @NorthBySouthBaranof: Well if that's the case, then I guess there was no reason bringing up those points in the first place. X-Editor (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  The SPLC's research into hate groups is widely considered authoritative in reliable sources. Like all reliable sources, they have occasionally made mistakes. What we look for is, what happens when a mistake is made? In the SPLC's case, they have generally admitted the error and corrected it publicly. You misstate the Nawaz case — he did not "win" the lawsuit because the SPLC settled the case before trial, apologizing to Nawaz and publicly retracting the offending statement. The Family Research Council is, indeed, a hate group; terrorism is certainly never an acceptable response to hatred, but your suggestion that the SPLC is somehow "responsible" for the attack is ludicrous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes, considered reliable and authoritative. The OP is not really asking a question but rather making a lot of opinionated POV claims. Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Softlavender: Sorry if I am POV pushing. After hearing arguments from others, I have determined that the SPLC is reliable source. X-Editor (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • The SPLC is reliable for their own opinion which should only be taken from what they say explicitly (their website is confusing, but e.g. maps are useful and easy to understand). Their classifications are widely disputed and it is one of the worst opposition research sources listed at WP:RSP. According to their own financial information, they accumulate hundreds of millions of dollars so they can prepare for lawsuits which they receive by their political opponents who have been slandered and defamed by the SPLC. While the SPLC has inspired an act of terrorism, I would ignore that as the New York Times have inspired 1,000,000+ murders of civilians. I recommend reading this and this before citing some BS from this hot garbage advocacy organization for factual information in an article. wumbolo ^^^ 14:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • When the SPLC places a group into one of its hate categories, that should be treated as RSOPINION, though they should be considered an authorative voice that is appropriate to include their opinion for on such pages with inline attribution. SPLC has also done other work not specifically calling out any group under any label, but broader examination (for example, a few years ago, the number and states of Confederate statues in the South US), and such reports can be considered as RS, as they show the appropriate diligence and fact-checkng and editorial oversight. --Masem (t) 15:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable, though consider WP:DUE. I broadly agree with Wumbolo and Masem. SPLC's classifications of living people can be relevant, but only if similar observations have been made by other reliable sources. In cases such as Maajid Nawaz, where the SPLC smear classification was widely disputed, including the SPLC classification would constitute undue weight. feminist (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This is only a food-for-thought exercise. Today, SPLC released a report stating the number of groups that advocate hate has grown by 8%. SPLC report, USA Today. Now, the problem is here is that this report is based on what groups the SPLC themselves have deemed promoting hate, rather than any other tracker. This is a case where we know there's some skewing of the data due to how SLPC works and their bias, which is going to contain more false positives. As such, while this report certainly can be used, it should not be treated as uncontested fact, but as something with attribution "According the SPLC, the number of hate groups..." --Masem (t) 17:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

    Or perhaps something like "The number of groups that advocate hate, as designated by SPLC, has grown by 8%." feminist (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Your comment is objectively false. SPLC is NOT reliable. SPLC lost a very large defamation lawsuit, paying out over $3m for falsely labeling another advocacy group as a racist hate group. "Southern Poverty Law Center Settles Lawsuit After Falsely Labeling 'Extremist' Organization". "Southern Poverty Law Center Pays $3.4M to Resolve Defamation Case". "SPLC statement regarding Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation". The Southern Poverty Law Center argued that its designations of "racism" and "hate groups" were opinions, not assertions of fact, but the court expressly rejected this. The court expressly ruled that labeling someone racist or a hate group is not an opinion, it's an assertion of fact, and thus subject to defamation. There are another 60 defamation lawsuits starting to make their way through the court system against the organization, and another 200 in preparation, all alleging defamation. "'About 60 Organizations' Are Considering a Lawsuit Against the SPLC Following $3M Nawaz Settlement". "Update on the 60 Separate Defamation Lawsuits Against the SPLC Under Consideration". The Southern Poverty Law Center is a biased and factually incorrect source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It's worth noting that for Maajid Nawaz, the SPLC issued a retraction before the case went to trial, and apparently before it even went to court at all. This wasn't a lawsuit, this was the threat of a lawsuit, and the SPLC paid as part of a settlement, not as damages or anything. While this mistake was hardly commendable, retractions are exactly the kind of behavior we want to see from reliable sources which make a mistake. Not great, but very far from the death-blow its detractors make it out to be.

  While there is an all-you-can eat buffet of accusations and conspiracy theories that the SPLC is a financial racket, so what? When did we start caring about WP:FRINGE nonsense like that? Neither being well-funded, nor being an advocacy organization, make a source any less reliable. They are still experts for the subject of their advocacy. As I've said elsewhere a bunch of times, we do not expect doctors to be "impartial" when discussing cancer, or government agencies to be "impartial" when discussing crime, but for some reason this specific organization is treated as a special case outside of normal standards. Expecting sources to be neutral when discussing this kind of bigotry is false neutrality. As an encyclopedia, we should use direct language to describe these things, and if that means saying "the SPLC has labeled this group a hate group" so be it. Fussing about exactly how many independent sources cover it in exactly how much weight it has... it starts to look like we're trying to find an excuse to downplay important information just because it makes some people uncomfortable. Why are we making that the reader's problem? Grayfell (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  your comment is false. There was a lawsuit. There was even a court ruling. SPLC filed a motion to dismiss arguing that its designations were opinions. The court rejected that motion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  This IP has been blocked for edit warring, so will not be able to respond here. Perhaps they will take the time to more carefully read the sources they have been posting. If there was a court ruling, I haven't seen any source. Grayfell (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • "considering" is not "starting to make their way through the court system", at least not in this universe. Oh, and these 60 different butthurt organizations were "considering" back in August: are they still thinking? And what's your source for "another 200 in preparation", since I don't see that anywhere in the stories -- from Pajamas Media, oh, quite the reliable source there -- that you link to? So, apparently, you're unclear on the meaning of "objectively". --Calton | Talk 09:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes it's reilable We've been over this so many times. Racists don't like the SPLC because it calls out racists without dissembling. That doesn't make it unreliable. It makes it honest. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I"m sorry, but is this really WP:AGF? Dismissing the ideas of anyone who disagrees with you as "they're just racists" is just as biased as what you're claiming they are. Buffs (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • AGF is about people, not about sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • No, generally not a good RS reputation in the ‘hate group’ context being asked about. There was some embarrassing failures and backing away, and this just isn’t their area of long expertise. Something from them might be noted as an event, but any product would need extra scrutiny. In general they’re an advocacy group so might be taken as a WP:BIASED source, and have prominence in some topics so would be suitable RS in other areas for a POV statement and a reasonable but effort (but not great) on matters of fact — the bias is basically expressed in word choices and selection of approach or topics, but their fact-checking seems limited and I haven’t seen any good practice retractions printed where they were wrong. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exercise caution - Marc A. Thiessen, a columnist for WaPo, wrote this piece. Also of interesting note is Britannica's article by Kathleen Brown wherein it states: "In addition it has been charged with exaggerating the threat of racism for purposes of fund-raising, of wrongfully applying the term hate group to legitimate organizations, and of promoting a left-wing “politically correct” agenda under the guise of civil rights." I linked to the articles for reference. Oh, and there's also an interesting perspective in the Politico article. There are quite a few 3rd party sources that support a cautious approach. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 12:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  SPLC is the most widely cited authority on hate crime in the US. The issue is nott hat SPLC is unreliable, but that the Republican Party have embraced bigotry to such an extent that criticism of bigotry is now seen as political bias against them. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Citing the authority of a right-wing speechwriter who famously defended torturing people is... well, not convincing. Of course Marc Theissen opposes a civil rights group - he spent years working for white supremacist senator Jesse Helms and then publicly argued that waterboarding people to the point of drowning is just peachy. He hates civil rights so obviously he hates the SPLC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  I am here to discuss RS, and I'm not the least bit interested in anyone's political views. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Then why are you bringing up Marc Theissen? He's a partisan columnist and thus his columns are a reliable source for nothing more than his own opinion. If you're going to cite his opinion as if it matters, you'd better be prepared to discuss why he might hold that opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  And the other columnists in WaPo aren't partisan? Where are the RS that back-up what you're saying? You might want to take a look at this discussion and weigh-in. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  I think we can comfortably say that if they work for a media outlet, they have strong POVs. Which is why we should make sure we avoid editorials, attribute claims and endeavor to find non-journalistic sources, like the SPLC for statements Wikipedia makes whenever possible. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Furthermore, the low-opinion of a columnist whose politics are opposite an organization, should not be given much WP:DUE weight in assessing the quality of a source. Of course Theissen doesn't like the SPLC. Of course we, at Wikipedia, should consider ourselves free to disregard him entirely. When Wikipedia started becoming a news aggregator is when Wikipedia began to fail being an encyclopedia.Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  WP is still an encyclopedia, but it still can serve some function as a news aggregator, as long as we are sticking to fundamental facts, and avoid all the talking head analysis and opinion that doesn't have the longevity to know if it surpasses RECENTISM. If there's enough discussion about a group /individual being a hate group beyond the SPLC (and likely referencing the SPLC), it can be included, but otherwise the SPLC's stance, without any other sources referring to it or collaborating it, should be kept out. --Masem (t) 16:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  SPLC is a primary source and WP:NOR policy is quite clear about how we are supposed to use them. WP:PRIMARY: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. In my comment above I said Exercise caution whereas our policy reads "but only with care" - same difference. The responses following my contribution attempt to discredit a journalist over political differences, despite their position being corroborated by multiple other RS. Each case should be analysed on its merits and corroborating sources and not taken as blanket acceptance. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  I feel the need to correct an error here. The SPLC is not a "primary source". Primary sources are things like court transcripts, raw scientific or technical data, etc., which require some degree of expert interpretation. The SPLC's products are secondary sources—they analyze, evaluate, and interpret available information on hate groups and bigotry. MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, when the SPLC discusses the theology and history of the Nation of Islam or the rhetoric of the living person Louis Farakhan, [28], it is most certainly not a primary source for the Nation of Islam (NOI) or Louis Farakhan articles -- the primary source is the historical documents, the statements of the NOI, or the statements of Louis Farrakhan, the SPLC is a secondary source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  You might want to rethink your correction. According to our PAGs: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Litigators and investigators are part of what comprises SPLC - see the WaPo article "Is The Southern Poverty Law Center Judging Hate Fairly?" The original research faction of that organization is included in the article. They do the research and collect the material they use to litigate and make their lists. They are not unlike a news source doing investigative reporting in that regard - but they take it further and litigate so yes, they are considered primary. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Not at all. Every person who writes about something would then be primary. What lawsuit on the Nation of Islam or Louis Farakhan are you referring to, and what research are you claiming was used in that lawsuit or are you just making up both the lawsuit and that the research was used. And if it was used in the lawsuit did the trier of fact then decide SPLC, you're right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  SPLC's assessment of a group/person (whether it is contested or not) is definitely secondary w.r.t. to that group. SPLC researches the tenets of the group , what the group has done, and makes a conclusion. Transformative, and thus secondary. SPLC would be primary for discussing anything directly related to the SPLC's organization. --Masem (t) 19:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Masem - NEWSORG states: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. How is that different from what SPLC does? What they do is investigate a group or a person, and publish their analysis based on what the group/person says, how they act, what clubs they attend, what they publish, etc. Is it not an analysis of their own research and their opinion? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Read that again, specifically "primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author"; if the SPLC assesses a group as a hate group, that statement is a primary one in context of talking about the SPLC, but it is secondary in context of the group. The primary/secondary/tertiary distinction varies based on the context, so a work can be both primary and secondary at the same time, determined by the context of its use. --Masem (t) 19:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  And that explains why I'm primarily secondary. 🤔 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Fully reliable The only people who find it unreliable are those for whom their research exposes as bigots. They have all of the hallmarks of a reliable source otherwise. --Jayron32 14:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Given that SPLC has had to redact some of its classifications, SPLC cannot be considered 100%. Where they aren't categorizing groups, their work is generally fine as an RS, when they categorize groups or people, that becomes RSOPINION and must be attributed, but they are a recognized expert in such, and not excluded when there is discussion of a group or person considered as a hate group by other sources. --Masem (t) 14:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
      • There is no reliable source that doesn't make mistakes. The question is how they respond to mistake making. The SPLC has generally owned their mistakes and made corrections where evidence is clear, from other sources, that their initial research was in error. --Jayron32 15:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Well they owned their mistakes after they got sued. Repeatedly. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Factually false. There was no lawsuit - only the *threat* of one, aka a demand letter, after which the SPLC reviewed their work, acknowledged fault and settled. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
            • Well, let's not oversimplify things. SPLC published their list in 2016 to fairly widespread public outcry, and then eventually edited their statement the next year. Nawaz basically started crowd funding his legal representation, and after retaining counsel the SLPC eventually retracted the statement, issued an apology, and agreed to pay more than three million dollars two years after the fact before an imminent lawsuit landed. GMG^talk 15:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
          • And even with that, they are still applying labels which are inherently subjective and thus affected by their known bias. WP does not factually call groups or people by labels without attribution, so SPLC's classifications still must be taken as RSOPINION. Authoritative, absolutely, but not 100% reliable. --Masem (t) 15:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The SLPC is reliable the majority of the time and in most cases it won't be difficult to find other sources corroborating their classification. Because they get it right the majority of the time, the majority of people who vehemently oppose them tend to do so primarily for ideological reasons. Having said that, the SPLC is not infallible and has made some very high profile mistakes. Perhaps most notable is their disaster with labeling Maajid Nawaz as an anti-Muslim extremist, for which they paid out nearly four million dollars and issued a public apology. In that case the SPLC was not only rebuffed by Nawaz but also by a number of high profile media outlets. So if you do find a case of SPLC v. the world, then you should tread lightly. In cases where the SPLC is only the most unequivocal voice among a variety of sources that more or less agree with them, then they are perfectly fine the vast majority of the time. GMG^talk 14:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable - SPLC is a widely recognized, reliable authority, and they cite references for their work to boot. Our own article describes them as "the organization most widely associated with tracking hate groups in the United States", and "the SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups [...] and extremists have often been described as authoritative". They skew left only because political discourse has skewed so far to the right. That being said, we do normally cite the SPLC's conclusions as that organization's words, not facts in Wikipedia's voice, but that is a long way off from being unreliable. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable* *The same as multiple SPLC discussions previously, which are listed at perennial sources, we examine each statement and use in context because contextmatters. Issues of due and balance are other considerations, involving surveys of multiple RS, just because an RS exists does not mean any particular use is appropriate - so bring an article statement, bring the SPLC source, and bring other relevant RS, for any fruitful discussion. (Just to correct the record, although I am sure it is already in the prior discussions, the Nawaz settlement offer did come before the lawsuit was filed and the retraction came before that. And the settlement money was to be used: "to fund work fighting anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism."[29] Moreover, the proposed suit and settlement themselves were criticized as anti-free speech [30] or free press [31]. So, YMMV.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Not to be trusted about anything outside the US. Their very foolish characterisation of Maajid Nawaz, active in Britain, shows this (since withdrawn). A Trump-like level of inaccuracy about the world outside US borders. No opinion on how accurate they are on inside-US matters. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable - Cited in academic and reliable media, often described as authoritative, retracts errors – what’s not to like? I suppose you can call them an advocacy group. But, they’re not advocating for a particular group. Basically, they’re advocating for anyone’s rights as anyone can be a victim of some hate group. If they’re the only source referring to a group as a hate group, attribute inline. O3000 (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable: in addition to being an advocacy group, SPLC is a full-fledged media company with a known reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Only reliable within context They have often labeled individuals/organizations with whom they disagree politically as racist or "anti-<put your cause here>" categorizing them just as problematic as the KKK. There have been lawsuits on the matter. I see nothing wrong with including their opinion "The SPLC has labeled XYZ as a hate group/racist", but not "XYZ is a hate group/racist." They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes Buffs (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exercise caution & include context I agree with Buffs that anytime the SPLC is sourced regarding their "hate list" with an established political (read: not the KKK...) organization with whom they have political disagreements with, there has to be a disclaimer that it is really nothing more than an opinion piece. Please remember that the SPLC operates a functioning political action committee and is unabashedly political. That alone warrants context whenever they are used as a supposedly WP:RS. Darryl.jensen (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  RfC: Crunchbase

  Should Crunchbase be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia as per previous discussions[32][33]? X-Editor (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes per WP:USERGENERATED. X-Editor (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies — Newslinger talk 12:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes this is most commonly a source or compendium of press releases, or mash-ups or minor alterations of press-releases, from the companies themselves or their paid agents. It is not an independent reliable source. MPS1992 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Crunchbase (RSP entry) is clearly questionable as a source of user-generated content, as I previously argued in "Is Crunchbase a reliable source?", and should not be used as a reference. However, I'm not sure whether it's acceptable to link to Crunchbase in the External links section of an article. It's generally acceptable to link to IMDb (RSP entry) according to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites § IMDb and some editors say it's okay to link to Discogs (RSP entry) at WP:RSN § RfC: Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm. Is Crunchbase similar enough to IMDb and Discogs to be treated the same way? — Newslinger talk 09:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Newslinger: I'd be okay with Crunchbase being allowed as an external link in the external link section of an article as per your argument above. That being said, i'm not okay with Crunchbase being used as a reference/citation in articles per previous discussions and per WP:USERGENERATED. X-Editor (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  Would you be okay with adding Crunchbase to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList as an alternative? The list works differently than an edit filter does, but it would reduce the number of Crunchbase citations without interrupting editors who are trying to add it as an external link. This was the solution I suggested for Discogs at its current RfC. ​— Newslinger talk 11:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Newslinger: I'd be okay with adding Crunchbase to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList instead of banning it as a source altogether as per my arguements above. X-Editor (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Maybe. The article about Crunchbase says "Crunchbase sources their data in four ways: the venture program, machine learning, an in-house data team, and the Crunchbase community. Members of the public can submit information to the Crunchbase database. These submissions are subject to registration, social validation, and are often reviewed by a moderator before being accepted for publication." Now, this suggests that the content is subject to editorial review, which is a hallmark difference between an unreliable blogging / personal opinions site and a reliable source. Also, beyond the general-public available Crunchbase, there are several paid products, which suggests that this discussion / decision should be limited to the no-subscription Crunchbase and not necessarily things like Crunchbase Pro and Crunchbase Enterprise. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Crunchbase is not a reliable source as it is usergenerated. It would be like using Wikipedia as a reliable source. As far as the filter, it should be treated the same as IMDb and similar sites as it follows the same concept with the same reliability. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. The source is used in totally inappropriate ways. feminist (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Discourage as ref and allow as external link I support any actions that encourages editors to treat it in this manner. We should handle Crunchbase in the similar manner as Discogs, IMDb, and similar user-generated sources. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • NO - use when appropriate, likely for business interests and startups. And I’m not inclined to think such a broad/vague labeling is appropriate. Yah, a lot of start up or any tech info they’ll be good for is from press releases, but that’s true for anyone publishing on the topics ... Microsoft or Apple insights being whatever they will give out is a long-standing known item. It winds up usually reliable in technical facts but tending to overenthusiasm in judgement of ease or benefits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

    Self-published sources are generally unacceptable as references. In addition to being self-published, press releases are also sponsored and promotional content. Sources that publish churnalism are considered less reliable than ones that don't, as seen in previous discussions for TechCrunch (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 13:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes – WP:UGC, often inaccurate. — JFG ^talk 02:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes: WP:USERG; no editorial oversight. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but possibly with the alternative above to allow it as an external link per WP:USERG and some indication that people are citing it when they shouldn't, though it's worth noting that we may eventually have to revisit the question of what to do about content produced via machine learning. --Aquillion (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - per the above, but I would look for potential RS that may be cited or referenced in their articles. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would say that we should not use it as a reference for all subjects, especially not for the controversial information. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  RfC: Bustle

  Which of the following best describes the reliability of Bustle?

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

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

  • Option 2 or 3. Bustle is a content farm that employs interns to write articles for $10 an hour (see Business of Fashion article). That doesn't bode well for reliability. feminist (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Do they have an editorial policy, and how robust is it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Context needed - In which articles is Bustle being cited, and for what specific statements? There is no such thing as a 100% reliable - or a 100% unreliable - source. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

    @Blueboar: Bustle is currently cited in 1,844 articles (see 1  ), a significant proportion of them being BLPs. feminist (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 3. Bustle is owned by Bustle Digital Group (bustle.company), which was founded by the co-founder of Bleacher Report in 2013. Bustle Digital Group acquired Mic in a 2017 bankruptcy auction and Gawker (RSP entry) in a 2018 bankruptcy auction. The company's journalistic reputation has been poor:
    1. "What Was This Bro Thinking? Bustle.com's Bryan Goldberg Explains Himself" (2013) from Forbes (RSP entry)
    2. "From Mars" (2013) from The New Yorker (RSP entry)
    3. "Is Bustle the Next Condé Nast?" (2019, archived) from The Business of Fashion, per Feminist

  The article from The New Yorker explains that Bustle's writers are not "seasoned professionals", but "hundreds" of "writers from the group of young women that is Bustle’s intended readership, those aged eighteen to thirty-four" who "are paid, but only part-time rates. (Interns get fifty dollars a day, while more established freelancers receive a hundred.)" The article from The Business of Fashion shows that Bustle is based on a non-staff "contributor model" similar to the ones used by Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry) and HuffPost contributors (RSP entry). After acquiring Mic, Bustle Digital Group laid off Mic's "entire editorial staff" and replaced them with freelance contributors. Bustle emphasizes quantity over quality, and should be considered generally unreliable. Additionally, I would avoid using Bustle for contentious information related to living persons or for establishing notability. — Newslinger talk 13:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 2. This is a source I consider "borderline", which is a better fit for option 2 than option 3. It is good to see that Bustle makes error corrections, as noted in the editorial policies that Wumbolo linked below. More reliable sources should be preferred when available. — Newslinger talk 21:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Bustle Digital has editorial policies and Mic has editorial standards. wumbolo ^^^ 14:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2. It's not a great source, but see here - their reputation isn't great, but isn't terrible, either (and a lot of the complaints focus on stuff unrelated to the accuracy of their reporting, like underpaying their writers or heavy-handed editorial controls.) I'd decide on a case-by-case basis and would generally try to find a better source when possible, but it's not a kill-on-sight source or anything like that (except perhaps for potentially WP:BLP-violating material, where it's clearly not good enough.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Option 4, without a larger consensus on this "deprecated" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (i.e. the default for all but the worst sources -- Bustle isn't top shelf journalism, but it's not of the sort that we need one of these blanket decisions on). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • NOTA per my iterated position that opinions must always be cited and ascribed as opinions, that "celebrity gossip" should always be "deprecated" and that anything else should be specifically discussed. This RfC is too broad by half. Collect (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • OTHER - Reliability should be determined for something particular, in a specific case and context. While generally I can reflect they seem to have decent editorial control and extensive coverage of some topics (e.g. feminism, personal interviews, lifestyles, fashion, tech) and just a modest left bias by wording choice but not so far as spot blindness or cheerleading... that as evidence just doesn’t take me to any of these choices, and I’d say it only excludes option 4. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

    So, Option 2 would be closest to your view, right? feminist (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • 2. -sche (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - it's always best to corroborate the information. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Rfc: company-histories.com

  company-histories.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

  It seem another rip-off of International Directory of Company Histories. So, is this site had copyright problem thus WP:ELNEVER? Matthew hk (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I would treat this article similarly to Fundinguniverse.com, which was discussed in a recent RfC, and Reference for Business (referenceforbusiness.com), which is currently being discussed on this noticeboard. I'm adapting my comments from those discussions here:

    Cite the original reliable source, but say where you read it. Company-Histories.com is very similar to Answers.com (RSP entry) in that it contains text from established tertiary sources. In this situation, most editors would reference the original publication in the citation, but link the citation to the Company-Histories.com page, and also include "– via Company-Histories.com" at the end. You can see an example of this at Hypnales § References ("– via Answers.com"). If Company-Histories.com contains any pages that do not indicate that they were republished from established sources, then those pages would be self-published sources, which are questionable. Additionally, if you can prove that the content in Company-Histories.com is not properly licensed, then it's a copyright violation and all links to it should be removed under WP:ELNEVER. However, a cursory search did not find any pages on Reference for Business that weren't sourced from Gale publications and Gale is known to license their content to other websites.

  — Newslinger talk 12:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  I have viewed some link of fundinguniverse, which most of them are NOT using |via= and mis-citing fundinguniverse as source. Wikipedia should not encourage to cite pirate site which some academic journal web scrapper was black listed. Matthew hk (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  None of the domains mentioned in this discussion are blacklisted (i.e. listed in the spam blacklist or the global spam blacklist). Are you referring to something else? — Newslinger talk 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  What is the different of some academic paper database (as re-publisher) what were blocked due to concern of copyrights? Certainly someone can written a code as web scrapper to rip-off the content of fundinguniverse, Reference for Business.com and company-histories.com, and made a new site and then other people by good faith insert the link to wikipedia. Among those three sites that "re-publish" International Directory of Company Histories, only the parent company of Reference for Business.com had somehow stated they had been licensed. So, if these sites keep on emerging AND most of them did not declare they are licensed (so far only one declared), how to tell which one did not have the copyrights problem. Or just make it stop, only one or two such mirror sites (what had somehow declared they have license) are white listed , and converted the existing links of other sites to those "declared". Or just have a lengthy project of verify them one by one with the offline hard copy and add back many missing information? All of those site seem originate from one copy, that somehow intentionally skip the author of the original entry in the books. Those entries most of the time are updated by different person as well as in the back of the book, they stated where the previous version are located, so it is odd that "licensed" content are not declaring the author as a minimum. Matthew hk (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  Also for Reference for Business .com, the owner of the site had stated they are licensed some content from other sites, which presumably included St.James Press, the imprint of Gale for the International Directory of Company Histories. However, company-histories.com did not made such claim. Matthew hk (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not really sure if this noticeboard is the best place to ask about copyright infringement, since most of the discussions here focus on a source's reliability. There doesn't appear to be a noticeboard to discuss whether a source violates copyright, but Wikipedia:Copyright assistance lists Wikipedia talk:Copyrights ("Copyright discussion") and Wikipedia:Copyright problems ("General help/discussion") as two possible venues that might be more helpful. Since there appear to be numerous sites that republish Gale content, it would be useful to make a definite decision on all of these sites at once. If these sites are considered copyright violations, then you can directly request blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. — Newslinger talk 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  India/Pakistan

  Not even sure if this is really the right place.

  At this time a lot of blatant propaganda and misinformation is coming from both nations news media. As such I think (for the duration) we should have a moratorium on using Indian Pakistani media for statements of fact. At best (and I am not even sure I support that) any claim made by the media of those two nations should be caveated or attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: A similar article can be created for the current India and Pakistan situation on the lines of these articles:

  • Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict
  • Media coverage of the Iraq War
  • Media coverage of the Syrian Civil War
  • Media coverage of North Korea

  It should be done now if possible if such an article doesn't already exist. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  Not really the point I was making. The issue (if you look at the article on the conflict 2019 India–Pakistan standoff is the over use of clearly biased sources that are pushing nationalist agendas.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly. I am broadening/focusing your point so the debate can become more productive. This is my only input for this. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven: The manner in which the media in either country are reporting the situation is also relevant to the story: so yes, I'd agree that the substance of the article needs to be based on sources from outside either country, but using in-text attribution for the sources from each country would add to the article. If there's enough substantive coverage of misleading media coverage, a separate article wouldn't be a bad idea, either. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  The problem (as I see it) is a "he said, he said situation" (which the article suffers from now, to a degree). Added to this is the desire for a live news feed we we just have a ton of recentism based upon very biased reporting.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  Previously notified by DBigXray: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics — Newslinger talk 07:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan, Talk:2019 India–Pakistan standoff — Newslinger talk 07:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Completely agree. Even the ones though reliable like NDTV, WION (both Indian) were spewing wrongful content. I am not sure on Dawn (Pakistani) but couldn't rely on that one as well. Had to rely on Western media to give un-biased news Sherenk1 (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  I have noticed that both Pakistani and Indian newspapers report facts non-objectively, while Western newspapers typically attribute reports to the source they came from. So in cases of dispute well known sources such New York Times, BBC News etc are better sources.Bless sins (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  are SPSs automatically allowed in a BLP?

  As experienced editors are well aware, while primary or related sources cannot be used to establish Notability, they are quite acceptable for adding relevant information to WP articles. is a claim made at Talk:Howard_Edelstein

  
  The question devolves from use of podcasts and SPS sources for material about the person. My opinion has been that if any question at all is raised, that Wikipedia requires that we stick to reliable sources. Has that rule been changed or removed? Collect (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • While self-published sources are not "automatically allowed", they can be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions under WP:ABOUTSELF, even in biographies of living persons. Reliable secondary sources are preferred, of course. — Newslinger talk 22:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Collect, please stop pretending that Self-published Sources and Reliable Sources are mutually exclusive; WP:SPS - which is an actual WP Policy - recognizes reliable self-published sources. Newimpartial (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (ec)Self published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, in some situations. See WP:SELFSOURCE. Without diffs or the specific claims and sources we can't say much else. Meters (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  The case at hand clearly uses the SPS sources as a means of asserting importance to a person where no actual reliable sources do so. The podcast "interviews" show dang little. Collect (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  Except that the case at hand also offers RS awards, guest of honor appearances, books and reviews. Except for that, and that the SPS I've noted above 'are' reliable - except for those aspects, you are undoubtedly correct - 'where no actual reliablw sources do so' - such a shiny fresh strawman. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  No they are not automatically allowed, in fact they are generally discouraged.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  Please don't conflate primary sources with self-published sources or falsely suggest that all primary-sourced content would therefore meet other applicable guidelines including WP:DUE. I have never seen any WP editor suggest that "SPS are automatically allowed in a BLP". SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Howard Edelstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  WP:BLPSPS places very strict limitations on SPSs for biographical information.

  To avoid NOT and POV problems, it's best to work from sources that are independent and reliable, using other sources for details on topics already identified in the better sources.

  That said, this noticeboard best addresses the reliability of specific sources for specific content. It would be best to follow that approach. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Ronz:, as I said immediately above, there are two separate issues here. There are SPS, which can be used only in very limited circumstances where the noteworthiness of the contnent and ABOUTSELF are satisfied. Then there are PRIMARY sources, which is a much broader category. This thread began with a sentence about PRIMARY sources and then OP launched into discussion about SPS.

  With respect to the article you link above: I listed some RS that are used as references in a current AfD on that article. I didn't link to the specific article content they verify, because I thought the citations at the article will make that clear. I'd greatly appreciate it if you or anyone else would address the use of those sources in that article. That would support the discussion, one way or another, at the AfD. The linked article also contains a limited amount of other content that's cited to other sources, some of them primary but none self-published. They include, e.g. corporate reports that give job titles, etc. At any rate, those are not relevant to the notability discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  Notified: Talk:Howard Edelstein — Newslinger talk 07:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  Citation for Breitbart News WP article: sufficiently direct?

  I'd value feedback on a source related to the Breitbart News page. The lead paragraph in the WP article is:

  Content: "Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or Breitbart.com) is a far-right syndicated American news, opinion and commentary website founded in mid-2007 by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, who conceived it as "the Huffington Post of the right." Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and some of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and many traditional conservatives alike. The site has published a number of lies, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories.

  There's a lot here that seems a bit sketchy by Wikipedia standards, but my question is specifically about the following reference in support of the claim that "The site has published...conspiracy theories".

  Source: Trump offers former military intelligence chief Michael Flynn post as national security adviser. This is on the PBS web site, but the ultimate source appears to be the AP, which as far as I can tell is universally agreed to be an RS.

  The cited article isn't about Breitbart News or conspiracy theories; in fact, Breitbart News isn't even named. As you'd expect, it's an article about Michael Flynn. The impetus to cite it as a source comes from the following paragraph:

  Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, also visited the skyscraper and called Trump “a true friend of Israel.” He specifically cited as another “friend” Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon, whose selection as a top White House adviser has created a backlash among Democrats. Bannon’s news website has peddled conspiracy theories, white nationalism and anti-Semitism.

  It seems to me that the connection between this article and Breitbart News is somewhat tenuous. On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that Breitbart News is what's meant by "Bannon's news website" and that the AP must certainly have vetted the line "XXX has peddled conspiracy theories..."

  Is this a citable source for "Breitbart News publishes conspiracy theories", or does it fall under the category of citations cautioned against by WP:RSCONTEXT: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."

  Previous discussion here. Thoughts? NillaGoon (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  Notified: Talk:Breitbart News — Newslinger talk 07:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Reliable. NillaGoon's argument is one we have seen many times before: that a mainstream, reputable, and otherwise reliable news source isn't reliable for a certain point because it isn't the central focus of the source. This type of argument has been rejected here time and again. We don't apply WP:RSCONTEXT mechanically in this way. When we look at the actual context, we have to understand how reputable newsrooms work. Journalists and editors of reputable, established newsrooms fact-check each and every statement in their stories, not just the central ones. A statement saying that a fellow media outlet publishes conspiracy theories is not made lightly and would be subject to intense internal and external scrutiny. After being fact-checked by the AP editorial staff, before it was published it then would have had to survive scrutiny by PBS NewsHour, one of the most reputable news organizations in the world. If a false statement of this magnitude were to somehow slip by both the AP and PBS NewsHour then it would become a major scandal and would lead to a public correction by both organizations. The reliability of this bit of the source is further borne out by the fact that a host of other reliable sources have published the same thing. A handful of these sources are listed alongside this one, by such reputable outlets as the LA Times, NBC News, CNN, and Snopes.com. I believe there are many more. R2 (bleep) 18:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable. Bannon’s news website has peddled conspiracy theories, white nationalism and anti-Semitism is straightforward, and establishing that that is a default description of the site is worth citing them for even if it's not the main focus of the article. I would not want to rely on only that one source for such a broad claim, but fortunately there are other sources there as well (and since this is in the lead, it's also covered in the article in much more depth using sources like those.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable Pretty much all of the above.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - see BBC and ADL as both provide info and may lead to other RS for further corroboration. Whatever RS is/are chosen, MOS advises us how best to handle contentious labels using WP:INTEXT. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  I oppose in-text attribution here and do not believe WP:LABEL applies, but those are tangential since they're not the subject of this discussion. R2 (bleep) 18:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Not usable I do not question the reliability of the source, but now we're putting a single source for a controversial claim, which is not sufficient for a lede qualifier. Further, the statement from the source could be read multiple ways, and I feel it's a bit of an OR jump to make the conclude the statement. We know that BBN has "news" and has "opinion" and I do not question that some of its opinion columns promote conspiracy theories, but news-wise...it might but we can't be the ultimate deciders of that, and need multple sources. Remember, reliable does not mean that what is published is factual, and things like YESPOV and attribution of claims still apply to RSes. --Masem (t) 19:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  I think you might be confused about the issue being discussed. No one is proposing using this source in isolation. It's one of several, as mentioned. R2 (bleep) 20:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  If there are multiple (and their seem to be), then it appears that it would be better to simply not use this source directly in the lede support, but perhaps later in the body. Using 4 instead of 5 sources to support the point isn't harming the justification of this in the lede. --Masem (t) 21:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Please help me understand your position here... Citation overkill issues aside, are you suggesting that of the various reliable sources cited for this content, we should get rid of this one? If so, why? I don't see any explanation from you as to why this particular source is any less reliable than any of the others. In fact it might be more reliable than the others. Are you suggesting we remove it simply because an NillaGoon objects to it? R2 (bleep) 18:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - I have to agree with those who are saying omit it. Reliability is not a binary thing. It is a sliding scale. When multiple reliable sources support some bit of content, we should always favor the most reliable ones. This does not mean that the sources we omit need to be deemed UNreliable... just that they are marginally less reliable than others (the ones we do decide to use). In this case, there seems to be pleanty of sources that are better (ie more reliable). So there is no need to use the one in question. It can safely be omitted. This is one of the rationales behind WP:Citation Overkill ... we don’t cite all reliable sources that support a statement, we descriminate and only cite the BEST sources that support it. Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  What makes this source any less reliable than the others? R2 (bleep) 18:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Reliable: AP is certainly reliable for the statement in question. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Moot. I agree with Masem in that sourcing this claim to a single source is inappropriate, but it's not cited to this single source. feminist (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  Hollywood Mask

  Found this in an article, Hollywood Mask, appears to be a gossip sheet. The assertion it's supporting isn't contentious but I'm wondering if it should be replaced. Article it's being used on is a BLP Asha Rangappa and the specific article being sourced to is here, and it just seems icky to me. The source is used in four articles, all BLPs. valereee (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Celebrity Gossip - sourced to Twitter posts and a "bio" not specified - likely a press release from the company producing her show. Any genuine "reliable source" would not lead off with "Was FBI agent Asha Rangappa never married to anyone or is it just that she has done the 'impossible' by keeping her husband out of the spotlight? Who's the father of her child? These were the questions that raided her Twitter feed-- sometimes, even harassed by 'trolls'" Collect (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, clearly at best a crap source; bad enough that I edit all four BLPs to either remove whatever's being supported or replace the source with something reliable? But since it's only four articles, does that mean we don't need to add it to perennial sources? valereee (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Is this Native American advocacy site an RS?

  All, my take is that the following site is not a reliable source: http://nativeappropriations.com

  My rationale: This site is VERY clearly a personal site/blog and seems to have no editorial control/standards other than the whims of the owner. Regardless of the owner's personal credentials, it doesn't meet WP standards for inclusion as a reliable source.

  I'd appreciate a second opinion from some neutral parties. Buffs (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's pretty much just a blog. It might be usable for mundane personal details about Adrienne Keene per SELFPUB, but that's about it. GMG^talk 21:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  • While personal blogs are generally unreliable, it looks like Native Appropriations is apparently a quite notable blog run by Adrienne Keene, an expert in Native American Studies. Thus, per WP:BLOGS, it's reliable in some cases. What exactly is it being used to support that brought you to RSN, so that we can judge its reliability in this specific instance? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  • *EC* Specifically in the article War bonnet, her opinion is being used to support "Due to their historical importance and status, traditional Native Americans now consider the wearing of headdresses without the express permission of tribal leaders to be an affront to their culture and traditions" and "The wearing and displaying of such headdresses, and other "indigenous traditional arts and sacred objects" by those who have not earned them, especially by non-Natives as fashion or costume, is considered offensive by traditional Native peoples."

    The articles cited are [34] and [35] and [36] While these are certainly the views of two individuals, they are both editorials/opinion pieces. I don't disagree that some Native Americans feel that way, but there's no evidence that even a majority (or significant minority) feel that way and should not be portrayed as such.

    Other applications are of a similar nature. Buffs (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Adrienne Keene is being quoted about Native American opinions on non-Natives wearing Warbonnets and dressing up in Native costumes in groups like Order of the Arrow. She is being cited as a source as to what some Natives think of these actions, in those articles. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  I disagree with that assessment "cited as a source as to what some Natives think". Surely if these are mainstream opinions, we can find something other than a personal blog. The views of this academic are extreme, in my opinion. Corbie's opinion on the subject is that he/she is here to combat "systemic bias" on Wikipedia and categorizing corrections to misleading links as disruptive editing (in this case, the page numbers referenced did not contain supporting information for the material cited/claimed).

  I asked for a third-party, unbiased opinion from others so I can better assess the situation and ensure MY biases aren't out of line here. I specifically did not invite Corbie as it was a check on MY opinion, but it's kinda clear I'm being stalked no matter where I post, so I'll just let the chips land where they may unless specifically addressed. Buffs (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  I think that in principle it is acceptable to use the source to support the claims that it is attached to in the article Warbonnet and Order of the Arrow, and would consider the source to be reliable (a Google Scholar search shows that the blog is even quoted and discussed in academic literature). However, it also appears that all of these claims are already supported by multiple other citations––in no scenario in that article is this source the sole supporting citation for a claim. If there is consensus that the other sources are more comprehensive and reliable, it may be prudent to remove this source as a consequence, as particularly Order of the Arrow is bordering WP:CITEKILL territory. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  I think the problem is that many of these cites are of the same variety. I don't think it's at all unfair to state that there is at least some vocal opposition to some aspects of Order of the Arrow, but it's equally unfair to state "The Order of the Arrow has been protested and criticized for engaging in cultural appropriation and spreading stereotypes of, and racism against, Native Americans.[7][57][53][58]" when it represents a WP:FRINGE opinion of 2-3 people.

  • #7 is literally the opinion of TWO people as quoted in an online advocacy piece from a highly biased site and fails WP:RS without qualifications (See above). It also qualifies as a WP:FRINGE opinion (just two people).
  • #57 is an opinion piece in a blog that quotes the same article/people of #7. It does not mention "stereotypes" or "racism" and only mentions "appropriation" in regard to the letter to the editor referenced in the #7.
  • #58 is Keene's piece and that is addressed above. It is a violation of WP:RS for the aforementioned reasons.
  • #53 RELATED CONCERN: What do we call it when someone cites a source for a claim, but the reference doesn't support such a claim? This is Deloria's page 126. I'm not saying that somewhere in an entire book he isn't critical of the Order of the Arrow, however, I don't see such criticism on p126 as referenced. There is nothing about the OA and "stereotypes" or "racism" or "appropriation" and, therefore, doesn't belong here. If I'm missing it, please quote it.

  In short, what's being cited isn't supported by the given references as well as WP:RS/WP:SYNTH. Buffs (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Without delving into the SYNTH cases or analyses of the other sources, I think that the source Native Appropriations, as the blog of a notable academic at a reputable institution, which is itself cited in academic literature, should be considered RS on this issue. I don't see any evidence that these viewpoints are fringe, and the section you quoted from the article makes no claim that a majority or that even a significant portion of the Native American population shares these opinions–it simply states that the Order of the Arrow has been protested and criticized. Perhaps a compromise could be reached if the text was changed to something like The Order of the Arrow has been protested and criticized for what its critics describe as engaging in cultural appropriation and spreading stereotypes of, and racism against, Native Americans. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  If it's so prominent in academic literature (which has editorial oversight), it should be easy to cite that and not her personal blog (which has only her own opinions/no oversight).

  I would be TOTALLY fine with replacing this reference with a couple of academic journals + a little rephrasing: Critics of the Order of the Arrow describe some of its actions as engaging in cultural appropriation of Native Americans. As long as it is backed up with the academic literature, I see no problem with it and back this solution 1000%. Buffs (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  I think there's a minor misunderstanding here: I was citing examples of Native Appropriations being cited in academic literature as evidence that it should be generally considered an RS on matters relating to Native American culture and identity. These citations are not necessarily specifically about The Order of the Arrow. I would support the usage of Native Appropriations as an RS, or at least RSOPINION, in the absence of more formal academic sources on the subject. That having been said, a quick Google Scholar search has returned several academic sources critiquing the Order of the Arrow's use of Native American imagery, and in several cases specifically assessing it as racist and appropriative ([37], [38], [39], possibly more available). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Basically this. You don't do anybody any good by defending crap sources when you can just cite good sources. GMG^talk 23:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Adrienne Keene is an Ivy League professor, and Native Appropriations is her official site. This is the type of site we make an exception for as it is in no way the "blog" of some random Internet person, but the official publication outlet of an expert commentator in the field. The pages on which Keene is quoted are when an expert, Native American opinion is needed specifically on cultural appropriation. Native Americans traditionally have not had the same access to mainstream publishing outlets as more mainstream communities, and a number of trusted academics and orgs use blogging software for their official sites. Buffs is currently trying to remove Native responses from articles, and this is part of that effort. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  This would make it authoritative - meaning her opinions should likely be included if the discussion of native appropriations is brought up in a topic, but not necessarily RS, but definitely RSOPINION. Now as a academic, she's likely not to distort facts, but its still a blog and corroboration would be reasonable to ask for factual content. --Masem (t) 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Her blog is utilized for research and quoted often in academia and by news outlets. Here is what Brown has to say about both Dr Keene and her blog. https://vivo.brown.edu/display/akeeneIndigenous girl (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Well, she is an assistant professor who appears to have only been teaching for a couple years. If you want to cite her opinion, you would be better served taking it from something she's actually published. I don't for a second buy the argument that NatAm opinions on cultural appropriation is so desperately lacking in RS that we really need to resort to citing blogs. GMG^talk 21:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  People often quote her precisely because she's an expert in the field. She has specialized in the field of appropriations from Native cultures since she was a student. Usually when she is used for an inline cite, there are other citations used in addition to hers. Buffs has been going through articles and trying remove her entirely, even though her words are certainly WP:V, and in many cases, for the topics she is weighing in on, WP:RS. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  If she's been widely published, then cite where she's been published. If she's been widely cited, then cite where she's been cited. If her blog is used to support content where multiple more reliable sources exist, then it serves no purpose. There are entire journals dedicated to these subjects. Trying to use a blog just comes off as fairly lazy editing. GMG^talk 21:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Articles quoting Keene are cited in these, and other, articles, whenever possible. :) But, as stated above, Native Appropriations is her official site, so there are materials quoted from there, as well. With a course load to teach, not everyone is publishing all the time. And racism in mainstream media means that Native voices are not published as often as non-Native ones. We use what we can as citations. Bit by bit, there are more Natives in academia, and getting published in third-party sources, but it's been slow and challenging replacing outdated, inaccurate, non-Native anthro voices with Natives who actually know the subject matter. This is why sometimes we've had to use Native academics official sites. It's not an effort to skirt any rules, it's an effort to make sure coverage is accurate, and WP:RS for the communities in question. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  It isn't up to you to replace "non-Native anthro voices with Natives who [by your opinion] actually know the subject matter" or "make sure coverage is accurate [and aligning with your opinions exclusively]." WP:RS is the standard we should use; dissenting opinions are welcome as are those opinions supported by WP:RS. As I've said on your talk page, if we want to change WP:RS standards to account for "systemic racism", then let's have a discussion on it. Until then, we should stick to the guidelines of WP:RS. Buffs (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  <OUTDENT>

  • American Indian Culture and Research Journal
  • The American Indian Quarterly
  • American Indian Law Review
  • Journal of American Indian Education
  • Studies in American Indian Literatures
  • Journal of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association
  • Canadian Journal of Native Education
  • Canadian Journal of Native Studies
  • European Review of Native American Studies
  • First People Child & Family Review
  • Indigenous Law Journal
  • Indigenous Peoples Journal of Law, Culture & Resistance
  • Native American and Indigenous Studies Journal
  • Native Studies Review GMG^talk 22:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  OMG, GMG. A thousand times, yes! Buffs (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  GreenMeansGo, I think it's clear that I'm talking about replacing misinformation, like that on the Boy Scouts sites, with WP:RS sources. Cultural competency is required to evaluate sources. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  No, you're acting like cultural appropriation of NatAm heritage is some esoteric emerging topic that hasn't been covered by native writers in an out of both native and mainstream publications. It's not. It's been absolutely written to death, and there's aboslutley no reason why we should need to cite a blog to cover what is one of the quintessential subjects of indigenous American scholarship. GMG^talk 22:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  LWN.net for Draft:NumWorks

  Is LWN.net (formerly Linux Weekly News) a reliable source for Draft:NumWorks? Specifically, is it usable for establishing notability? The staff consists of three people, and they also "purchase a number of articles from freelance authors". The article in question is "The NumWorks graphing calculator". — Newslinger talk 02:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linux — Newslinger talk 02:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  I consider LWN.net a generally reliable site, in the sense that the main news stories and news sections written by the staff have editorial oversight and fact checking, aided by independent criticism in the comments. Contributed articles are more of a grey area. I don't doubt that the staff look over the articles for obvious errors, but I don't know how much detailed fact checking is done. For the calculator review, my sense is that with editor approval, it has more weight than a random blog, but less weight than a staff-written review. As a notability source, it might be marginal. In reading the review itself, I didn't see any obvious errors and it was more balanced than a PR release would generate. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  Invicta Magazine

  I was wondering if anyone knew if Invicta Magazine was a reliable source, especially with regard to its reviews.

  No clear "about" page, which is always a negative, but quality of material looks high, fairly well estabished so I was hoping someone might have some better knowledge beyond what I could dig up. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  • RS with inline attribution per RSOPINION

    At the bottom of the page "All content copywrite of Invicta Magazine, 2017". I question their editorial skills when they can't spell "copyright" correctly, but Seems to exercise SOME editorial control

    [Main page] seems to be largely written by a single person (though not all).

    I think the page is appropriate via WP:RSOPINION, but I wouldn't place it in WP:RS for anything other that attributed comments. Buffs (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  The Internet’s Dizzying Citogenesis Problem

  Putting this here since it could be of interest for RS-interested editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  Good find, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. The part in the article that struck a cord with me: "As it turns out, the original prankster editor was a journalist, so he decided to out himself as the original anonymous editor who executed the stunt in an article for the newspaper he worked for—a move that gave him a proper counterreference to use to finally correct the record." It's another reason among several for editors to exercise caution when citing sources, especially those we find to be in agreement with our own position. The higher likelihood of this happening will probably be material applicable to NEWSORG and RECENTISM. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I concur that it's a problem. It's BEEN a problem in academia for a while too. When something is cited and agrees with preconceptions, many give it a pass without serious review/in-depth analysis. This is a significant problem especially in the humanities fields. It's a problem that Wikipedia is at the very-real beginning steps. Buffs (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  Consensus on Mediaite as reliable source?

  Mediaite reports on what people are saying in the media. I find it to be a reliable source for quotes combined with video clips that support those quotes in context. Its basic modus operandi is "he said this, she said that, here's a video clip, see for yourself." Its reportage appears balanced with no evident partisan bias I can detect.

  Granted, their headlines are sometimes kinda clickbaity ("Fox’s Wallace and CNN’s Tapper Both Call Trump-Kim Meeting a ‘Failed Summit’ to Bolton’s Face") and their prose is sometimes "breezy" (The New York Times it ain't) but it is a useful source for "nuggets" of quotes/videos that are not readily found elsewhere (with an exception being Twitter, which some editors frown upon, regardless of who made the tweet).

  The site carries a smattering of opinion pieces, which are clearly identified as such in both the article body and in its URL so they can be challenged accordingly if used by an editor.

  I suggest Mediaite be given a "green" rating here, with a qualification similar to that for The Hill (newspaper): The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources.

  Comments? soibangla (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  I have no personal opinion atm, but here is a discussion from 2017: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_225#Mediaite. It's certainly used as a source [40], I don't think there's anything wong with being WP:BOLD and see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  RfC: Aporrea

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

  As in previous discussions, I will suggest four options:

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

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

  • Option 2 or 3: – While the website utilizes some user-generated content and has been accused of being a propaganda outlet,1 2 it has recently been more critical of the Chavista movement and censored for it.3 My main concern right now is that much of the website is user-generated and opinion-based, affecting its reliability. As the discussion progresses, I may clarify my position.----ZiaLater (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3:

    Their "About us" page has nothing to indicate journalistic credentials or editorial oversight (in fact, it reads like an advoacy org) [41]

    User-generated content: [42]

    Not to mention their propaganda history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  Fox News redux

  "Fox has long been a bane of liberals, but in the past two years many people who watch the network closely, including some Fox alumni, say that it has evolved into something that hasn’t existed before in the United States. Nicole Hemmer, an assistant professor of Presidential studies at the University of Virginia's Miller Center and the author of Messengers of the Right, a history of the conservative media's impact on American politics, says of Fox, 'It’s the closest we've come to having state TV.'"

  "[E]veryone ought to see it for what it is: Not a normal news organization with inevitable screw-ups, flaws and commercial interests, which sometimes fail to serve the public interest. But a shameless propaganda outfit, which makes billions of dollars a year as it chips away at the core democratic values we ought to hold dear: truth, accountability and the rule of law. Despite the skills of a few journalists who should have long ago left the network in protest, Fox News has become an American plague."

  References

  Still it has its defenders here. I guess so does the flat earth. Go figure. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  Can we please put a moratorium on reviews Fox News barring any clear evidenace that their routine news reporting has been broken to the point of unusability? Opinions are not sufficient for this, particularly in the current political climate. We just had this discussion in the last two months. --Masem (t) 03:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, this is ridiculous. If two opinion pieces in rival outfits was all it took to ban a news service, then we'd have to strip every single news source from Wikipeida. Maybe say no Fox News RFCs for a year. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Can someone just close this? There's already been more than enough discussions on the topic. Despite the outright hatred some editors have for Fox News, the consensus is not going to change and providing biased opinion pieces does not help to make a serious argument--Rusf10 (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC).

  Whilst we do not have to discus this every 6 weeks consensus can change, and thus it is never final.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  RfC: The Points Guy

  Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Points Guy?

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

  — feminist (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 4 or 3 for content involving credit cards, Option 2 for non-sponsored content. The Points Guy is a website with 20 full-time employees including 14 staff writers. They earn money via credit card referral links. Their Advertising Policy page lists out the companies they have a conflict of interest with, so we can assume that any articles that involve a company listed on that page are unreliable. As the website's disclaimer states that compensation from credit card companies may affect how these products appear on the website, we should consider any article containing mentions of such products to be default unreliable, and remove uses of such articles on sight. However, the site also covers news and reviews on airlines, travel and related topics, most of them written by staff writers. The Points Guy was added to the spam blacklist on 4 December 2018, following Newslinger's assertion that the site "consists solely of sponsored content". This is false: not all content on The Points Guy is sponsored. Taking the website's two most recent news articles, "American Airlines Further Restricts Service, Emotional Support Animal Rules" and "US Citizens Will Soon Need a New Travel Registration To Enter Europe", the articles themselves do not appear to contain any affiliate links, and their quality appears to be on par with other travel websites (Time Out, Lonely Planet et al.) or newer Internet properties that also contain native advertising (BuzzFeed, PopSugar, etc.). At least some of the current citations to The Points Guy seem to be appropriate, such as those on Lufthansa and O'Hare International Airport. Considering the existence of usable content on the website, blacklisting the whole website on the spam blacklist is inappropriate, but since there is no way to only blacklist sponsored content, I consider an edit filter (a la Daily Mail) to be the best solution: prevent editors from making mass/spam additions easily, but allow legitimate uses of the source. The filter should warn editors to ensure that the article they cite does not contain any references to credit card products or any company they have a relationship with. feminist (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3: i would go for 4, except that being paid to write favourable material does not mean they have fabricated it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Not usable for sponsored material but reliable enough for straight reportage of fact. Collect (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 appears to be a reasonable compromise, considering that there are usable articles on The Points Guy, even though they are a small minority of the site's content and can be replaced with more independent sources in most instances. For example, "American Airlines Further Restricts Service, Emotional Support Animal Rules" was covered by the Chicago Tribune, Business Insider, and a local ABC News site. (I'm selecting option 4 because The Points Guy publishes mostly sponsored content, not false or fabricated information.)

  I note that the site's advertising policy doesn't reflect the full extent of sponsored posts on The Points Guy. The site receives affiliate commissions for promoting co-branded credit cards (e.g. a credit card jointly marketed by Barclays and American Airlines, or by American Express and Hilton Hotels & Resorts), but the page only discloses the relationships with the banks, not the airlines or hotel chains (except Marriott International). There are examples of The Points Guy articles that don't promote a partnered financial institution, airline company, hotel company, or travel agency, but these articles make up only a very small portion of the site's content. — Newslinger talk 21:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  In my opinion, a better alternative to removing thepointsguy.com from the spam blacklist would be to add thepointsguy.com/news to the spam whitelist. The majority of the site's "News" section is still promotional, but it's better than the rest of the site (which is exclusively sponsored content). — Newslinger talk 21:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  Catalogues

  Do catalogues such as the Barefoot Catalogue of revenue stamps count as a primary source? I'm currently reviewing Revenue stamps of the United Kingdom for GA which heavily relies on this source. The source seems to be well thought of, but it is always a concern when an article relies on a single source. SpinningSpark 14:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  pretty much a secondary source, as they are not the publishers of the stamps. If course it depdends on what it is being used as a source for.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  Good source - it did not print the stamps, it is written by "experts in the field" and there are zero "contentious claims" made in those catalogues. The Seaby (now Spinks) works on coins are in the same category, as well as the Robson Lowe works on stamps. Collect (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  Can we talk about The Onion?

  The Onion is known for being a very satire site. But is it reliable? I want to start a discussion. Then we can add it to the list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianWikiEditor (talk • contribs)

  What I think AdrianWikiEditor means is we need a discussion so we can add The Onion to WP:RSP as Obviously unreliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  I would say it is SO obviously an unreliable satire that we don’t need to list it. The point of the parennial list is to outline consensus on sources that have been discussed REPEATEDLY over the years... and the Onion has not been discussed repeatedly (probably because it is rarely cited). Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, I see your reasoning. That said, InfoWars is on there and my initial response to anyone even "just asking" why we don't use it is a very close warning shot with a notice that the other barrel is still loaded 'n dat dey'd bes' be gettin' ahnta sumudda topic weh dey woan' be cossin naw maw trubble. The few times I've seen users cite The Onion in earnest, they just plain didn't understand the concept of satire. (Not a language issue, my students in China got that The Onion was supposed to be a joke, the humor just didn't translate).

  There's currently 117 citations to TheOnion, though the ones I bothered to look at appear to be "in popular culture" bits. Those could be appropriate citations. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, we know The Onion is satire. But, what about XKCD?[43] O3000 (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  There's a whole subreddit for when people fall for The Onion. Including people who should know better. A member of the U.S. House of Representatives is one of them. As its satire draws on the absurdity of the real world, there's no harm in listing it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  There was also a former FIFA vice president who after being charged with corruption tied to use an Onion article as evidence of an American conspricy. I’m not sure if it needs to be listed but some people don fall for theses.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)