Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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

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

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

List of archives

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

New York Times article on paid reporting[edit]

Not sure if this belongs here or on the talk page. This New York Times article article mentions many items that are of interest to us. For example:

Maine Business Daily is part of a fast-growing network of nearly 1,300 websites that aim to fill a void left by vanishing local newspapers across the country. Yet the network, now in all 50 states, is built not on traditional journalism but on propaganda ordered up by dozens of conservative think tanks, political operatives, corporate executives and public-relations professionals, a Times investigation found.

ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Look at what happened to Newsweek on WP:RSP after International Business Times bought it in 2013. It's certainly possible for the newspaper to have different reliability depending on era. Graywalls (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
And that article is published by the NYTimes? The same NYTimes that endorsed Joe Biden for US president? No way! Bufono.svg[stretch] Atsme 💬 📧 00:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
You know better than that on this page. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Better than what? Trying to point out that a competitor is concerned about opposition to their POV? What's your point? Atsme 💬 📧 00:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Don’t even start... We don’t need to hear it all again. We know that your personal opinions on what constitutes a reliable source differs greatly from the current consensus, you don’t have to keep reminding us when its only vaguely on topic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
CJR reported on this back in 2019: (t · c) buidhe 06:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I suggest that we view all Metric Media sites as, at best, questionable sources. This reporting indicates that the sites have minimal editorial controls, are directed by people buying articles, and are generally content farms. This clearly fails WP:RS and WP:V standards. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Right, just as we wouldn't want to consider Courier Newsroom sites to be reliable sources of news, it doesn't sound like these Metric Media sites would qualify either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Good work by the Times there, I'd say. This looks like an open and shut case: these sources should not be used. In fact if anyone has a full list of domains there should probably be an edit filter. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Here is a start. Metric Media.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Does that mean they will be added to a filter of sorts? I can imagine that it will be hard for editors to keep up with all the different sources. Might be better to just block the URLs like a spam filter to pretty users from accidentally adding these pseudo-news sites. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • As noted above, we need to be careful about blanket removal because these papers existed before being subsumed by 'pink slime'. -- GreenC 18:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Though it's certainly far too common among established media, it's also fair to note that they violate the copyright of Wikipedia contributors (see this talk page message I left one user whose CC-BY 3.0 image of a local school wasn't attributed) Vahurzpu (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Republic TV[edit]

Republic TV is an Indian-news channel. It is at present the most popular news channel and website in India. It is my personal ideology, that it isn't politically reliable, but is reliable in all other cases. I think it deserves to be in this list.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  • The network has been identified as a source of false or misleading claims about Islam[1] and "fake news" 10.1109/CSPA48992.2020.9068673 Obviously it is known for right-wing, pro-BJP and Hindutva stance[2] (t · c) buidhe 11:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I am unconcerned about bias, it is not a reason to reject a source, but if more evidence can me made for falsification that would render it unreliable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
What is it being used for? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the channel is not politically 100% reliable, but it is not also 100% unreliable. So it should be shown as 'Generally Unreliable' in political status. But for non-political reliability. It should come as 'Generally Reliable'.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be considered unreliable in most other cases as well. It's reporting around Sushant Singh Rajput would be one major instance of it. There is also a thin line between what's political and what is not. A channel which wouldn't even refrain from fabricating quotes (see [3]) is not usable for anything, imv. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
OK if it fabricate quotes its not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the Sushant Singh Rajput point. But, that was close to politics as it aimed at the Maharashtra government. But the other news on entertainment, sports, biography's, non-political headlines etc.. are 99.9% reliable. So non-political should be presented (in my opinion) as 'Generally Reliable'. --Atlantis77177 (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Tayi Arajakate I would like to point out that they had produced fake news on the Karnataka Home Minister's comments, as it was political. I wouldn't mind the politically unreliable statement. But the non-political matter is the matter. The Sushant Singh Rajput case, was related to politics. Even otherwise it was just 1 issue. Rliable sources like The Guardian also have shown unreliability in some issues. But their other articles were fair.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Atlantis77177, If the Sushant Singh Rajput case was political then anything can be turned political, the case is also a very good reason why it should never be used in any biographies of living people. It's not possible to separate the junk from what's good without relying on other sources, at which point there is no legitimate uses anymore. This is the case with most of our deprecated sources. The Guardian (RSP entry) in comparison may have a political leaning but you will never find them outright manufacturing quotes for example, it's more comparable to the Daily Mail (RSP entry) if not anything else, perhaps even worse than it.
By the way, please don't copy my sign. Instead use Template:Reply to or Template:User link to notify me. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Tayi Arajakate (talk), the Sushant Singh Rajput case is just an example. It just happened once, and could happen to any reliable source. But the other incident is 100% political, and I have accepted that they are politically unreliable, but what I suggested is that every NEWS website, would have presented their own view on a topic, and campaigned for it, as Republic did in the Sushant Singh Rajput case. One case shouldn't alone affect their reliability in non-political matters. I expect more comments on the topic.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not something "that happened" but rather something they deliberately do, persistently and consistently. The Sushant Singh Rajput case is also not the "only non-political case", although the case should be enough. See the list of examples below, there is a political twist to these but as it goes with Republic, anything can be turned political or manufactured for political purposes.
I have listed this on the noticeboard for India-related topics which should bring in more comments. Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The misinformation on the Covid-19 pandemic were on Republic Bharat TV, which is another channel, though they are the same brand. Also the rest are all either political, or about famous people in different field, who have a strong political career. For example- check out Arundathi Roy and also the fact that Rana Ayyub has been critical of the illegal encounters in Gujarat, which was ruled by BJP. Also see [11] on BBC doing fake news. Yet, they are considered to be politically reliable, as they generally are. That is by considering the general case. The same should go for Republic as they are generally reliablr for non-political matters.

I am asking the other editors about factors like entertainment, sports and such non-political events where Republic TV is reliable.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

One of them is about Republic Bharat, the other is about Republic TV. Both of them fall under the same editorial hierarchy and republish each other's content. The Al Jazeera article is about BBC's historical use of propaganda in service of British foreign interests which doesn't apply to its current standards, the corporation became editorially independent from state interests around the 80s and 90s. We can't use British Raj era material from BBC for example. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Please recheck the website you stated on the fake news on the pandemic, it is by Republic Bharat TV and not by Republic TV. It is true that they are of the same brand, but they have different editorial offices and employees, which is the reason that they can't be related in this discussion. I just can't understand, on why can't you accept that a channel is reliable in non-political matter, when it is the largest NEWS channel in India. The political case is valid, and I have accepted the fact from the beginning, but in the case of non-political matters, the case is different. If you would like to clear the Arundathi Roy matter, please watch today's NEWS, on how a University declined her book, due to her political influence.
The Times Of India is considered unreliable in non-political matters also, as it publishes unreliable work, if it is paid.. But Republic TV is clean there. So I would like to stress on the point that it should be politically shown as "Generally Unreliable", and non-politically as "Genrally Reliable." Thank You.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Is there a specific article in which you want to use Republic TV? The Times of India (RSP entry) is considered close to generally unreliable for much less. As for why "I can't accept that the channel is reliable in non-political matter" is because a network which deliberately engages in fabrications is not one that is reliable for statements of fact, there is no reason to reproduce material which is possibly misinformation from that channel. Its reputation doesn't satisfy WP:RS and causes a whole lot of WP:BLP issues, if you want something like cricket scores or weather reporting, there are much better sources than this.
I have also cited two references for Covid-19 misinformation, the first of which is about Republic TV and the second one is about Republic Bharat, both of which share the same editorial staff; Arnab Goswami is the editor-in-chief of both, Gaurav Arya is the defense consultant on both, Aishwarya Kapoor is the political editor on both, etc etc. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This discussion leads us nowhere.Let me end it. Without any conflict, let's just state that Republic is 'Generally Unreliable'. Problem solved. Now the question is - how does that work.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:GUNREL explains how generally unreliable sources should be used. Although, I'd keep the discussion open for other editors (as in other than just us two) to comment on if they are interested, there's potential for more discussion. There's also barely been any time since the discussion was started. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I request more editors to join the discussion.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  • There is no dearth of authentic newspapers in India. The only reason to even consider Republic TV would be to peddle their opinions. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to peddle anybody's opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable. Republic TV is comparable to One America News Network (RSP entry), in that it is a new television network (3.5 years old) that has a tendency to broadcast misinformation and conspiracy theories with a strong political bias. Tayi Arajakate provided a list above, and there's one more topic not in the list that I'd like to highlight: Republic TV has been one of the most prominent promoters of the Love Jihad conspiracy theory. Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means, published by Routledge, includes a case study detailing how Republic TV (and Times Now) used "sensational" and "provocative" messaging to falsely portray the Love Jihad conspiracy theory as a real phenomenon. Examples include:
  • "Both channels [Republic TV and Times Now] harnessed the power of repetition by incessant tweeting of the words 'Love Jihad' along with some negative and/or leading words (e.g., 'forced conversion,' 'reality'). [...] This constant repetition suggests that the channels aim to diffuse this idea to viewers that 'Love Jihad' is less of a myth and that Muslims are conspiring to annihilate the Hindu population and culture."
  • "Both channels' [Republic TV's and Times Now's] news anchors encourage viewers to tweet using hashtags like #HinduGirlsHunted, #HinduGirlsForISIS, #LoveJihadNailed. Persuading audiences to use hashtags in their messages may give a false impression to viewers to see 'this media-fed thought process as ... [their] own' (Drabu, 2018, p.17)."
  • "Deploying Twitter during its shows, Republic TV claims that it is 'the first ever TV' to 'expose' 'Love Jihad,' inviting audiences to watch 'The Debate' on its channel."
  • "The prevalence of erotophobia and the perceived threat of Muslims (Berlant & Greenwald, 2012) reproduced by media outlets like Republic TV and Times Now facilitate actions and policies that are otherwise unjustifiable. In other words, the assailant took the responsibility of 'saving' Hindu girls from Muslim men and he believed that it would only be possible by enacting violence against them."
The above applies primarily to Republic TV's news reporting. Republic TV's talk shows, particularly The Debate with Arnab Goswami, are highly exaggerated versions of Fox News talk shows (RSP entry) that include an incredible amount of shouting. The New Yorker (RSP entry) explains: "Modi's supporters often get their news from Republic TV, which features shouting matches, public shamings, and scathing insults of all but the most slavish Modi partisans; next to it, Fox News resembles the BBC's 'Newshour.'" Fox News talk shows are considered generally unreliable even without the additional shouting, so I can't see any reason to consider Republic TV talk shows any more reliable than that. Altogether, there are enough issues with both the news coverage and talk shows of Republic TV that the channel as a whole is generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 12:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: More reviews please.

The result till now is 'Generally Unreliable'. --Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I have seen Republic Bharat through my TV and found that the news reporters are enthusiastic supporters of BJP and Hinduism. They criticise the Muslims for almost anything. So, I can say that Republic Bharat is a right-wing pro-BJP pro-Hindu anti-Muslim news channel. But I don't disgrace the reliability of the news channel in non-sociopolitical topics. So I can rate the sociopolitical portion generally unreliable and non-sociopolitical portion generally reliable. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I thank @Soumya-8974 for her review, even though it is about Republic Bharat and not Republic TV. Yet as Tayi Arajakate stated that they republish each other's work and have almost the same editorial staff, the point is valid. She and myself have shared the same opinion on the matter. I look forward to more views as the present situation is still- "Generally Unreliable" in both political and non-political NEWS. The non-political reliability margins are narrow, so a result can't deduced. More comments needed.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: I am a male person, not female. Please use "he" to refer to me. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I meant sociopolitical, not political. See political sociology if you're unfamiliar with the term. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974:I apologize for my confusion with the name, but in the end our points are the same. Please continue editting.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Unreliable for KPop and Kdrama related news: Republic TV's website – reports about Korean dramas and Korean pop based on the information given by Soompi and Allkpop, which is considered unreliable by Wikiproject Korea (Link: WP:KO/RS#UR). Hence, Republic TV's websites are unreliable for K-dramas and K-pop related news. Examples include:
1)EXO's Chanyeol embroiled in cheating scandal, SM Entertainment issues statement "as detailed by All Kpop" "translated by Soompi"
2)Suzy and Nam Joo Hyuk starrer 'Start-Up's ‘dreamy’ second poster released by the makers "as per reports in Soompi"
3)EXO's Chen is all smiles for his first military photo since enlistment; See picture "According to a report by Soompi"
Closure: I was informed about this discussion on my talk page by Atlantis77177.
-ink&fables «talk» 11:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@-ink&fables: Thank you for giving your opinion. The result at present is unreliable, please continue editing. We need more opinions.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The present result is 'Generally Unreliable'. Need more comments.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Reliable For non-socio political content. But can be used with attribution for socio-political content. Tessaracter (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Non-socio political content is by Republic TV is generally reliable. Socio-political content could be used with attribution. Having political bias cannot disqualify a news channel as fake. NDTV has also been caught for peddling fake news [12], [13] [14] . Similarly, Al Jazeera was exposed for peddling fake news about popular Palestinian-Israeli video blogger Nuseir Yassin [15] and Al Jazeera journalists too have engaged in spreading fake news [16]. However, these are largely considered as Reliable for socio-political content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMoonShadow (talkcontribs) 19:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
TheMoonShadow, if you want to discuss the reliability of NDTV or Al Jazeera, you should open a new discussions about them. Republic TV outright fabricates stories and quotations, without corrections and retractions and pushes fringe conspiracy theories which is much worse than simple bias in source. Most other equivalent sources are usually subjected to deprecation, and I don't see a reason why this should be exempt from it.
I was looking at their "science news", since even entertainment and sports news have socio-political context. And even that's a bunch of nonsense yellow journalism pieces. For instance, see the following:
  • [17] According to Republic TV, apparently a "wearable Covid-19 killing device" has been developed.
  • [18] Apparently, ageing reversal has been discovered as well!
  • [19] Earth is having a "laser battle with a nubela" because a telescope uses lasers.
  • [20] We are also apparently teleporting brains, this is cited to the Daily Star (UK), a deprecated source.
  • [21] What if a chicken nugget Is sent into space?
Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely unreliable for politics, celebrities, science and religion (alternate news sources can be used) but may be used strictly with attribution for other topics (if any do exist)- clearly Republic is too bad to be used for the four aforementioned topics, but I still haven't seen any clear evidence that the news company is completely bonkers for everything. IMO, the assessment should apply to the entire "Republic TV" group (including Republic Bharat) since I can tell from experience that Hindi news channels and websites tend to be less reliable here in India than English ones. By the way, can someone give an example of an article that doesn't touch on the four aforementioned topics? (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Last rephrased at 10:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable : Republic Network is highly unreliable and propaganda driven. Here is a compilation from fake news checking website Altnews

  • [22] Related to serious matter: India-China Ladakh standoff
  • [23] Related to Corona
  • [24] Related to Election Manifesto of parties
  • [25] Related to Political Leaders

That being said I believe editors must be carefull when using News Channels as a source as they are more opinionated than the Print Media. Newspapers and Print Media should be given priority as a source. defcon5 (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

How can you challenge a claim with articles from other unreliable sources like altnews ? Because Republic has exposed a lot of scams made by political parties in India.It is under attack by those parties to discredit republic TV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Allow me to ask these questions:
  1. Did you click on any of the Republic TV website links given as evidence of Republic TV's unreliability?
  2. Are you aware that AltNews is a fact-checking website certified by the Poynter Institute?
  3. Can you name at least one scam that has been exposed by Republic TV as you claim?
  4. Can you explain how a "news" source that peddles a conspiracy theory can be reliable? (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The Times of India[edit]

The Times of India is shown as politically 'no consensus'. But I believe that in non-political matters, it should be graded as Huffpost, where the articles by contributors should be 'gu' and for editorial non-political mattters- 'gr'. Please comment.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

What does 'gr' and 'gu' mean? Pahlevun (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I presume gr=generally reliable, and gu=generally unreliable. Grandpallama (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I would oppose this motion, at least as currently phrased. My primary exposure to ToI is going through their coverage of pop culture, and my overall impression is that this side of the publication is quite poor, with a lot of published content reading like promotional press releases. While I wouldn't consider them to be generally unreliable, neither would I consider them generally reliable, the articles need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. signed, Rosguill talk 23:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The previous ToI discussion was quite well attended. There would need to be a serious reason to overturn prior consensus. I agree with Rosguill that issues with pop culture coverage have also occurred. It may be useful for some content but first you have to check if it's pure PR. (t · c) buidhe 01:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Times of India is a proof on Times of India's reliability, but I agree to the point in political matters. What I argue now is on non-political matters, which are published by the editorial staff, and there has been general consensus around India that they are reliable.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

We need more reviews please--Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I initially thought TOI as a reliable source, like most Indians. But after going through the Kashmir-related coverages, I found some smells of POV in the news outlet. The pop culture concerns raised by Rosguill are also true. Therefore, I rate "generally ureliable" in political and pop cultural coverages, and "generally unreliable" in other coverages. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, Times of India is generally reliable for factual news reporting, including political and entertainment news (provided they are part of the main newspaper). Traditionally, the Times of India, Hindustan Times and the Hindu have a large readership base and are generally respected. However, care must be taken to distinguish the news (Times of India) from the ETimes (entertainment/pop culture reports which often carry promotional content). Both are part of website which confuses editors sometimes. However, while TOI has news, ETimes is more like a web portal which carries entertainment/P3 related articles. Even the website for ETimes states "ETimes is an Entertainment, TV & Lifestyle industry's promotional website and carries advertorials and native advertising". The actual TOI can be accessed from [26] and the news articles can be differentiated from the ETimes articles. Another thing to be careful of is that the TOI website carries reader's blogs which should not be used as a reference for any content.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • What does Encyclopedia Britannica's article about journalism have to do with the reliability of the TOI? Regardless, I concur with Rosguill about unreliability in entertainment news and articles about film, music and other popular culture topics, and nothing seems to have changed since February to make the paper generally reliable for news. This does not appear to be a formal RfC, and no arguments have been given as to why the previous, fairly recent and very well attended RfC should be overturned. --bonadea contributions talk 18:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    I will concede that DreamLinker may have a point about "ETimes" coverage vs TOI coverage when it comes to entertainment news; I'd never really noticed the distinction before and can't make an off the cuff judgement about whether non-ETimes entertainment content has been of good quality./ signed, Rosguill talk 23:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Usually reliable for non-controversial topics: The Times of India (TOI) newspaper certainly has a pro-India bias in topics relating to Pakistan and China. However, bias does not imply unreliability. In fact, TOI is nowadays politically neutral and has a low story-selection bias. The bigger issue regarding TOI's reliability is improper/non-existent disclosure of paid content. However, please note that this issue is not limited to TOI but appears to be prevalent in most of the major news outlets of India in varying degrees. As a quick citation to bolster my argument, please note how easily both the CIA and KGB sponsored stories in Indian media on a massive scale during the cold war. So deeming TOI non-usable would make things difficult for Indian editors like me since it would censor a large number of useful reports whose reliability is otherwise unquestioned.— Vaibhavafro💬 13:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    As a side-note, TOI is so large that it cannot publish factually incorrect news without drawing attention/criticism.— Vaibhavafro💬 14:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The present notion is 'Generally Reliable', for non-political contents. We need more reviews.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: I understand that you are doing this in good faith, but please stop posting these repeated "tallying" comments, and "We need more reviews" (here and in other sections). First of all, this is not a vote. Then, editors reading this page are capable of making up their own minds about whether to weigh in or not, and as already observed, if you are actually looking to change consensus, you would need to start a new RfC. Even in an RfC, there is no "running tally" or ongoing evaluation – that happens at the end of the discussion. And since you were the one who raised the question and since you have clearly stated your opinion, you could not be the one to close the discussion and evaluate the consensus. (Again, this applies here and in other sections). It is perfectly fine for you to ask the question and give your opinions, and if you disagree with others' opinions it is also fine to discuss that, but otherwise please just allow the discussion to run its course. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 09:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable I'm going through their website right now and I'm not seeing any extreme bias in either their political or non political articles. Flickotown (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  • No reason why the last RfC needs to be overturned, the pro-government stance of the paper was throughly discussed. The Times of India also has a lot of issues with undisclosed paid promotions to be considered generally reliable due to the fact it results in non-independent coverage. The parent company Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd pioneered the commodification of news in India through this very paper. For reference, look at this report from the Press Council or this report from Reuters Institute. The only thing, I'd say is needed is that there should a disclaimer against using it for determining notability. Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable in many instances, at least. I've used TOI in articles about Ravi Shankar's family, his association with Beatle George Harrison, influence on Western music and '60s youth culture, etc, and have never found an issue with it as a source. Not to dismiss concerns raised above but I think, generally, people are often too quick to dismiss a source entirely when, in the main, it might be pretty innocuous and no worse than any other source. For political news, that could well be a different story. JG66 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The Canary[edit]

Would editors mind having a look at the designation of The Canary as 'generally unreliable' after the most recent discussion in April 2020? [27] The summary says "Most editors criticize the accuracy of The Canary". I counted 6 editors voting for GU and 4 editors for GR with appropriate attribution. As far as I can tell the editors who considered Canary as GU didn’t raise any significant specific examples of how it was unreliable. My feeling is that the GU tag does not adequately represent the views of the editors who participated in the discussion. I would suggest 'no consensus' would be a closer summary. What do other editors think? Burrobert (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Always unreliable except as a primary source. For anyone who's unaware, The Canary is the house journal of the British lunatic fringe. I can see no circumstances in which they'd ever be a reliable source for anything other than as a primary source for their own writers' opinions; on those occasions where they're correct then a legitimate source will have published the same story and we can use that instead; if no legitimate source has covered the story, it's a good indication that either the story isn't notable in Wikipedia terms or that The Canary has made it up. ‑ Iridescent 16:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion about the reliability of The Canary. I was asking editors to look at the previous discussion and determine whether GU accurately reflects the content of that discussion. Burrobert (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
All discussions on this noticeboard are open to new arguments, which will be factored into a source's entry on WP:RSP after the discussion is archived or closed. To call for a reassessment of previous discussions on a source without new arguments, the correct venue would be WT:RSP. — Newslinger talk 18:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • A mere difference of 2 participating editors + zero clear examples provided of unreliability ~ hardly seems = justify the current GU tag. Just because you do not like a source's political stance is entirely irrelevant. The only relevant question here on this board is the source reliable. Basic Stuff. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look like the 'generally unreliable' statements provided significant proof (though perhaps they were based on consensus from the two previous discussions that were linked). Mostly GU arguments came from bias/POV, rather than reliability--not a valid argument in this venue. Supporters of 'reliable' put forward a couple of points that didn't land, including some statements about audience size or audience trust. They did describe indicators of a stable editorial staff and editorial policy, which is good for their position. The arguments in general were not very convincing either way, and I'd probably discuss the results only of that conversation as 'no consensus' based on the existence of basic editorial processes. Jlevi (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Before we run away with effusions over the wrong done The Canary by prejudice, let's peruse:
      • "Pro-Corbyn website The Canary denies it is antisemitic, then blames 'political Zionists' for forcing it to downsize". Jewish Chronicle. 2 August 2019. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
      • Topple, Steve (27 September 2017). "We need to talk about Laura Kuenssberg. She's listed as an 'invited' speaker at the Tory Party conference". The Canary. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
      • Lewis, Helen (27 September 2017). "The Canary is running a sexist hate campaign against Laura Kuenssberg for clicks". New Statesman. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
      • Collins, John; Mills, Tom (29 September 2017). "The BBC versus The Canary: two experts have their say". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
      • "Canary's story about Laura Kuenssberg 'breached press code'". BBC News. 20 December 2017. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
Another complaint in 2018 was also upheld. See here. Now that their darling Jeremy Corbyn has been deposed and ostracized, they've gone completely off the rails, and continue to be wholly partisan. See, for recent example, here. GPinkerton (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion about the reliability of The Canary. I was asking editors to look at the previous discussion and determine whether GU accurately reflects the content of that discussion. Burrobert (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Please stop writing the words "I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion...". You were answered the first time: "All discussions on this noticeboard are open to new arguments". We are going to discuss the reliability of The Canary whether you like it or not. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The Kunesburg article 1. never claimed that she would be speaking, 2. was updated 5 hours later to be clear that she wouldn't be speaking, and 3. was only ruled in need of correction because of a lack of 'due prominence' of the previous update. The only problem was the headline and as per WP:RSHEADLINES headlines are not a reliable source from any source regardless of reliability. Bad headline writing? yes; reason against being a RS? no. El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The were a rough consensus that the source in unreliable and the examples brought by GPinkerton is only make it clear.The WP:ONUS for these source was never met so it cannot be used in WP --Shrike (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Your wording is a bit odd but I think I know what you are trying to say. WP:ONUS talks about when a specific item of information can be added to an article. That isn't relevant to the determination of a source's general reliability. Pink didn't take part in the discussion on The Canary's reliability but the Laura K. incident, which Pink provides four links to, was mentioned in the discussion. In regards to achievement of a "rough consensus", if you referring to the 6-4 vote, my question was in part whether the 6-4 vote did indicate that "Most editors criticize the accuracy of The Canary" or whether 'no consensus' is a more accurate description of the discussion. Burrobert (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I participated and said attribute and use with caution. The discussion got a bit mixed I thought, with evolve and squawkbox, 2 other left leaning sites. I think generally unreliable is not really an accurate reflection of the convo. No con would be better, maybe rerun it by itself?Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Unreliable due to bias and free mixing of opinion and fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion about the reliability of The Canary. I was asking editors to look at the previous discussion and determine whether GU accurately reflects the content of that discussion. Burrobert (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Please stop writing the words "I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion...". You were answered the first time: "All discussions on this noticeboard are open to new arguments". We are going to discuss the reliability of The Canary whether you like it or not. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm skeptical that it really has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:RS. What's the evidence that such reputation exists? (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion about the reliability of The Canary. I was asking editors to look at the previous discussion and determine whether GU accurately reflects the content of that discussion. Burrobert (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Please stop writing the words "I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion...". You were answered the first time: "All discussions on this noticeboard are open to new arguments". We are going to discuss the reliability of The Canary whether you like it or not. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I read the first three examples posted by GPinkerton, and I frankly don't see how they support the "generally unreliable" label. The first example is a criticism of The Canary's criticism of Israel. The second is a Canary article criticizing a BBC journalist for agreeing to speak at a Tory conference fringe event. This article was corrected after publication (to make clear that it was a fringe event), which is exactly what we want to see reliable sources doing. The third example is an opinion piece in the New Statesman that criticizes The Canary's criticism of the BBC journalist. The author in the New Statesman claims The Canary's criticism was sexist (the only ground given by the author for this accusation is that the BBC journalist is a woman - make of that what you will). This looks like completely normal back-and-forth between publications with different political leanings: a publication that supports Israel criticizes a publication that supports the Palestinians, a publication that opposes Corbyn criticizes a publication that supports Corbyn, etc.

A determination of "generally unreliable" has to be based on stronger stuff than that. There has to be actual unreliability, not just differences of political opinion with other magazines. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the discussion has petered out. There are some editors who have reiterated their previous position that The Canary is GU. However, of those who commented on the previous discussion, most seem to believe that 'no consensus' is a more accurate description of that discussion. Does anyone have any objections to me updating the list to reflect this? Burrobert (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I object. The discussion has only been open a few days and there are contributions here dated yesterday. The last discussion referenced two or more previous discussions and taken together these three discussions indicate a strong consensus that it should not be considered generally reliable. Give me a few minutes and I'll try to show that more clearly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The April 2020 discussion[28] included 6 editors who argued that it is generally unreliable or has been deemed such in prevous discussions (Buidhe, Shrike, myself, Hippeus, JzG, Iridescent) (plus arguments against the policy basis of the reliability case put forward by and Hemiauchenia & JungerMan Chips Ahoy! who didn't themselves express a position), vs 3 editors who argued it was generally reliable (Burrobert, Bodney, Jontel), plus 1 editors who argued for a "use with caution" approach (Selfstudier).
The April discussion in turn referenced two earlier discussions. In September 2019, a question about The Canary and other similar sources elicited responses from 9 editors for unreliability (The_Land, Bondegezou, Bangalamania, Icewhiz, Sitush, Kirbanzo, Sceptre + JzG, Shrike, already mentioned) vs 2 editors for reliability (ZScarpia, + Jontel, already mentioned), plus ambivalent or "use with caution" responses from David Gerard, Newslinger, Bellowhead678, Selfstudier.
In July 2018,[29] 2 editors argued for unreliability (Ritchie333, + Icewhiz) and 0 for reliability.
The September 2019 in turn referenced two more local discussions on the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party talk page. In February 2019,[30] the debate was more about due weight and included The Canary along with other sources but 5 editors specifically commented on the unreliability of the Canary (Alssa1, + Icewhiz, Bondegezou, Bangalamania,me) although 2 arguing for inclusion who seemed didn't express doubts about reliability could be counted on the reliability side (RevertBob and Deb.
In July 2018,[31] 5 editors argued for unreliability (Absolutelypuremilk, Dweller, ThatMove + Icewhiz, Bangalamania) vs 2 for reliability (Jonjonjohny, G-13114).
Removing duplications from those who expressed an opinion more than once, that's 17-19 arguing for general unreliability vs 8 for general reliability, plus 4 ambivalent or "use with caution". The discussion above has brought 1 additional unreliability advocate (GPinkerton) and 1 additional reliability advocate (Thucydides411). This seems to me like a fairly strong consensus for unreliability generated over multiple discussions. If this isn't enough, I think there are further examples of unreliability not mentioned yet which I can outline. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
While I was unaware of this particular discussion, I can stand by position regarding the Canary and its reliability as a source. The Canary is repeatedly criticised by prominent figures across the political spectrum as being other the 'purveyor of fake news'; and is recognised as such by organisations like Stop Funding Fake News (which is itself a project of the Center for Countering Digital Hate). I know we don't make a habit of using twitter as a source, but as of 18 August 2020, the Canary (as well as another organisation that will remain nameless) was still referred to as a "fake news site" (source: here). Alssa1 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Alssa1, Stop Funding Fake News is, however, a fake group set up by people criticised by The Canary specifically in order to attack it. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: do you have a source for that? Because the evidence actually is that "Stop Funding Fake News" is a project by Center for Countering Digital Hate, which in itself is supported by a number of celebrity figures (though I know they're not particularly relevant) as well as Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson. As well as this, the CEO of the Center, Imran Ahmed sits on the steering committee of the Commission for Countering Extremism (source: here). So frankly I don't really buy the suggestion that this is somehow a 'fake group' that purely exists to attack The Canary. When can I expect you to provide some evidence backed up by reliable sources to support what you've said? Alssa1 (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Alssa1, SFFN have never, so far as I'm aware disclosed their criteria for declaring The Canary as "fake news", so we are in the dark as to how or why they may have reached that conclusion, it may be that they simply dislike it. Given that The Canary is fully regulated by IMPRESS and has been given a pass rating by NewsGuard. One could well regard the claims of it being a "fake news" website as being at best completely baseless, and at worst an open smear campaign by political opponents. G-13114 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@G-13114: Firstly, simply being a regulated publication on IMPRESS does not in itself make it a reliable source. It was during its of membership of IMPRESS that it broke the rules. As well as this it was during this time that it made the claims about "political Zionists", which is not a statement made by a reliable source on Wikipedia. As for NewsGuard, I inform you that Guido Fawkes passed all the conditions of NewsGuard's assessments (The Canary failed one on “Handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly”) and yet according to many, including our very own Guy (among others), "Paul Staines is not a reliable source." (source: here). So I ask again, where is the evidence of a "smear campaign" and/or why are the claims "baseless"? Alssa1 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Alssa1: Stop Funding Fake News is a political organization, which took a clear stance against Corbyn. The fact that an anti-Corbyn group campaigns against a publication seen as friendly to Corbyn is not surprising. It doesn't tell us anything about the reliability of The Canary, unless Stop Funding Fake News actually gave concrete examples of The Canary publishing fake news. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: is not a political organisation, it is a campaign/project conducted by Center For Countering Digital Hate this is a fact that is not hidden. As for the claims about Corbyn and SFFN, please provide evidence of this. Alssa1 (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The difference between what constitutes an "organization" and what constitutes a "campaign/project" is not really important. According to our own Wiki article about the campaign, it's led by Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman, both of whom have publicly campaigned against Corbyn and the Labour Party over the issue of alleged antisemitism. Stop Funding Fake News and Center for Countering Digital Hate are engaged in political advocacy. We can't take their criticism of The Canary as evidence that The Canary is unreliable - it's just evidence that there are people who don't like the publication for political reasons. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I don't know which article you're referring to, because neither the Wiki pages on Stop Funding Fake News or Center for Countering Digital Hate say that they are "led" by Riley or Oberman, nor does their website. All it says is that Riley and Oberman are supporters of the organisation, supporting an organisation is not the same as leading it. You keep saying it's engaged in 'political advocacy', but where's the evidence for this? Alssa1 (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The body of the article begins, The campaign began in March 2019, and was backed by Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman. The website for "Stop Funding Fake News" gives no information about who is actually behind it, so the only people I'm aware of that are involved in it are Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman. Both of them are known for opposing Corbyn and criticizing Labour for alleged antisemitism. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
This might be moving too far into a tangent but hucydides411} your suggestion that the SFFN website gives no information about who is behind it is incorrect. The front page of the site states: Stop Funding Fake News has been a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate. Company Number: 11633127. Registered Address: Langley House, Park Road, East Finchley, London, United Kingdom, N2 8EY. That Centre names people involved online here: The campaign primarily targets right-wing websites as well as a couple of alt-left ones so is certainly not primarily anti-Corbyn. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't actually recall participating in any discussion on this topic; if I did, it would have been without any in-depth knowledge of this website. If you look at it in the context of the general right-wing bias of the British press, I think it would be hard to demonstrate that it's any more unreliable than, say, the Express or even the Telegraph. We accept citations from those papers for items such as obituaries and the reporting of non-political events such as disasters, murders, etc. Where we are generally more careful is in accepting their political reporting as impartial, because we know it's not. I don't think any of the evidence produced above is conclusive, but it does not preclude further discussion of the topic. Unfortunately, Burrobert, it is normal on Talk pages for any attempt to revert a decision to be met with reiterations of previous arguments by the same people whose opinions contributed to that initial decision, regardless of how many or how few participated first time round. I think you will have to wait a little longer if you are hoping that people will be ready to take a fresh view of the topic. Deb (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is confusion between reliability and a strong political opinion. It is partisan, but so is much of the UK quality press. The Canary article references two inaccuracies, one minor (the headline on Kuenssberg, which was soon corrected and where the article text was correct) and another adverse adjudication has been mentioned whereas, for example, the article on the Jewish Chronicle, widely quoted on Wikipedia, lists a dozen adverse adjudications and law suits. In the previous discussion on The Canary, I did not see examples of inaccuracies, but expressions of dislike for its political line. I think I am right in thinking that we should go on the evidence rather than have a simple vote. There is a campaign to shut down The Canary and some editors may be influenced by that. Moreover, it has a distinct political viewpoint so is likely to provide information for articles not available from the generally conservative mainstream press. I agree that No consensus is the best description of the outcome. Jontel (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
"There is a campaign to shut down The Canary and some editors may be influenced by that." Where is the evidence to back up this claim? Alssa1 (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The "Hit list" for SFFN makes it clear that it attempts to shut down The Canary. In one tweet, the organization even gloated about The Canary having to downsize. Given that so little is known about SFFN, such as who runs it and who funds it, I think its credibility is close to zero. In the UK, there has been a long-running incredibly infected debate about Jeremy Corbyn which the British press has eagerly fanned the flames on. The Canary is in the "Corbynista" camp and SFFN and a whole host of other media orgs (The Jewish Chronicle f.e.) is in the anti-Corbynista camp and you can't trust their opinions about each other. ImTheIP (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
This supposed "Hit List" gives some pretty good examples of fake news, such as "promoting conspiracy theories about the Syrian civil war" and includes writers who seem to believe the ECHR is controlled by "pro-Israel political agents" (among other stories). I'm not sure how it's controversial for an organisation that puts things out like this to be considered a 'purveyor of fake news', perhaps you'll explain? As for the credibility of the organisation, why is it "close to zero"? We actually know a fair amount about the organisation, the SFFN is a campaign/project conducted by Center For Countering Digital Hate and is lead by Imran Ahmed and includes among its supporters Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson. Its board members are available here and we know that Mr Ahmed sits on the steering committee of the government's Commission for Countering Extremism (source: here). Can you please provide some evidence of the of the SFFN and The Canary being in some political war between pro-Corbyn and anti-Corbyn groups? Alssa1 (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

In looking at previous discussions about The Canary, we should restrict ourselves to discussions which occurred on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The guide says: "For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions that mention the source's reliability, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard". So we should not include discussions which occurred on an antisemitism talk page for example. Contributions by Junger in the April 2020 discussion should be ignored as Junger was blocked as a sock. The discussion that occurred in September 2019 was affected by considering three sources in the one discussion (The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox). The verdicts of editors in that discussion rarely discriminated between the three sources. Overall, it is clear that more than half of editors who have expressed an opinion on The Canary have considered it GU. However, there is a significant minority of editors who either consider it GR or who believe that context matters or that it can be used with caution. Burrobert (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

If we don't consider the RfCs at the Labour page "significant discussions" (although that's a page where we might expect those with knowledge of the Canary to be editing) then I think my numbers above would be amended to 14-16 generally unreliable, 4 generally reliable, 4 use with caution, rising to 16-18 generally unreliable vs 5 generally reliable to include those who have weighed in in the current discussion. I'm not sure about the perennial sources criteria, but I don't think there's any way to argue that more than a small minority think it is reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There's no justification for a label of "generally unreliable". In order to establish unreliability, there have to be actual examples of unreliability, which nobody here has yet provided. The only thing approaching an example that's been presented is a case in which The Canary said that someone had been invited to speak at a Tory conference, and it turned out they had been invited to speak at a fringe event at a Tory conference. The Canary subsequently corrected this fairly minor error. However, reading more about The Canary, it's become clear to me that this publication has come under significant political attack because it has generally favored Corbyn and been critical of accusations of antisemitism in the Labour Party. That is no reason, however, to label a publication "generally unreliable". I also see no evidence that The Canary represents the lunatic fringe of British politics. It appears to represent a position similar to Jeremy Corbyn, who was, until recently, the leader of the second largest political party in the UK. In any case, the objections to The Canary appear to be almost entirely political, and I strongly object to it being labeled "generally unreliable". -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Re there have to be actual examples of unreliability, which nobody here has yet provided. There have been examples provided here, but at any rate here are some: as well as the misleading story about Laura Keunssberg,[32] and conspiracy theories about Portland Communications,[33] it published articles by Max Blumenthal (editor of Grayzone, a deprecated source) on a Nicaraguan-based journalist that were described by the Committee to Protect Journalists as a “targeted online harassment campaign” after which the journalist was detained, interrogated and deported, leading to the National Union of Journalists protesting against The Canary's editor.[34][35][36][37]; as well as Grayzone it has contributors who write for outlets like MintPress and American Herald Tribune;[38] it published deceptive claims about Labour Party funding that promote antisemitic conspiracy theories;[39] it publishes conspiracy theories about Syrian chemical warfare;[40] one of its regular contributors (best known for his antisemitic tweets[41]) was recruited to write for a fake news site set up by the Russian government;[42] it published a Daily Mail style misleading story about story about a junior doctor's suicide;[43] it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS;[44] it published Russian government sponsored fake news about the Salisbury chemical attack;[45][46] before setting upt the Canary its editor promoted the Zeitgeist conspiracy theory movement[47] and worked with Davide Icke on his People's Voice;[48]and I think it published Pizzagate style fake news about Seth Rich's murder and later deleted the article without correction.[49][50] While comments above suggest that it is being criticied because it is anti-Corbyn, it has been criticised by several Corbyn supporters such as Corbyn biographer Richard Seymour,[51] or Owen Jones[52] (Note: I appreciate that not all my sources here are RSs by WP article standards, but should give enough information for un-involved editors to come to a view.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Could you actually break down exactly what was false about these stories? In your first example, "the misleading story about Laura Keunssberg", we're talking about an extremely minor inaccuracy (she was invited to speak at a fringe event at a Tory conference, instead of the main conference itself), and The Canary corrected it. So when you claim that The Canary published other false claims, without further elaboration, I'm skeptical. Please explain a) exactly what The Canary claimed, b) how those claims were false and c) how The Canary failed to retract or correct those claims. The problem is that your list does not explain any of this. Did the Canary make false claims about the Nicaraguan journalist? What false claims? When you write that, it published deceptive claims about Labour Party funding that promote antisemitic conspiracy theories, what deceptive claims did it make, and what antisemitic conspiracy theories did they serve? Your source for this is a Medium blog post that admits that The Canary's claim is true - it just argues that its antisemitic to point out that a pro-Israeli lobbyist gave a large donation to a politician (judge that argument how you will, but it's irrelevant at WP:RSN, which is concerned with accuracy). Be specific. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Just a few points. Whether something is a conspiracy theory or just a non-mainstream point of view is often in the eye of the beholder, and irrelevant from a RSN standpoint so long as there are no obvious factual errors. From what I remember the details of the Portland Communications story were correct, whether the story could be interpreted as a 'conspiracy theory' or not is a matter of opinion. And the Sailsbury poisoning thing was before any firm facts were known about the case, and there were still reasonable grounds to question it, so it can't be described as 'fake news' because the facts weren't known. You're repeating the Steve Topple tweets controversy, but conveniently leaving out that he had publicly repudiated and apologised for his views before he became involved with The Canary. The rest of your blurb seems to consist of guilt by association type arguments, which have little bearing on The Canary and its accuracy. From what I'm aware, when they have made mistakes (which every publication has) they have always gone on to correct them and apologise. G-13114 (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

As I've been pinged here. Short of time, so I'll just reiterate my opinion that The Canary is generally unreliable. Our own article is a good place to start with assessing this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

From Our own article:
  • IMPRESS upheld two of the 58 complaints they received during 2017/18 about The Canary's news reporting.
  • The Canary was given an overall pass rating and a pass on eight out of nine factors (it failed on 'handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly') by NewsGuard, an organisation which evaluates news outlets for trustworthiness.
  • A 2018 study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism described The Canary as "a left-wing partisan site" and an example of "alternative and partisan brands" which have "a political or ideological agenda and their user base tends to passionately share these views". Its trust rating was given as 4.69 where 10 is fully trusted, making it more trusted than the Daily Mail, Buzzfeed News and The Sun, but less than The Daily Mirror, the regional press or any broadsheet newspaper, although its trust level among its own users was at 6.65 (a similar level to The Independent, The Daily Telegraph and the regional press).
The rest of that section is an interview with the editor-in-chief of The Canary and criticisms from people who dislike The Canary's pro-Corbyn / pro-Palestinian stances. I don't see anything in that section that would justify the label "generally unreliable". I hadn't looked into The Canary much before it came up on RSN, but the more I read about it, the more it appears that the criticisms are almost all about the political direction of The Canary, and not about actual concrete falsehoods. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, I think a strong precedent here was set by the Morning Star which some people argued shouldn't be used as source because of its political bias. However a RFC decided two years ago that it was a RS as there was no evidence of general inaccuracy. Unless it can be shown that The Canary is generally inaccurate, then its political stance shouldn't be an issue about whether it is RS or not. G-13114 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Thinking about the Morning Star precedent, I would emphasise the contrast between it and The Canary: it is deemed highly partisan like The Canary but nonetheless reliable because it has editorial oversight, including an editor who had prior editorial and journalist experience (albeit less than previous editors) and a team of sub-editors; it has reporters who have serious journalistic experience; it is a print newspaper with a long reputation and also assets to protect; it attracts serious figures on the left and trade union movement as opinion contributors making its opinion pieces noteworthy in many contexts - in all of these ways it contrasts to The Canary, which has minimal editorial oversight, an editor whose previous journalist experience was a writing a pro-Zeitgeist blog, does not really have reporters or journalists in any meaningful sense, and has a business model based on clickbait. (Incidentally, if a local consensus at the Jeremy Corbyn talk page counts as significant discussion for the purposes of defining a source as reliable, then that might contradict Burrobert's reading of the perennial sources policy above?) BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Thucydides411 you are again repeating your assertions that the criticism of The Canary is politically-motivated without a single shred of evidence to support that claim. You keep asserting a lack of evidence of general unreliability when it has been repeatedly presented to you. In our little tangent earlier on about SFFN/CCDH, you made a series of demonstrably false statements about its leadership, organisational structure and aims and even continued them even if when the evidence was copied to you and the links given. I don't understand how you can keep making these claims... Alssa1 (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
You keep asserting a lack of evidence of general unreliability when it has been repeatedly presented to you. I've asked for specific false claims that The Canary has made and failed to correct/retract. Anyone is free to look at the above thread and verify that nobody has yet provided a clear case of that sort of behavior.
earlier on about SFFN/CCDH, you made a series of demonstrably false statements about its leadership What false statements? You're staking your claim that The Canary is unreliable on the say-so of Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), without giving any reason why we should treat CCDH as credible. It looks like a small political group aimed at lobbying American tech firms (hence the use of the American spelling "Center" by a British organization) and advertisers to dump certain outlets. Why should Wikipedia trust CCDH's judgment? -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I've asked for specific false claims that The Canary has made and failed to correct/retract. Anyone is free to look at the above thread and verify that nobody has yet provided a clear case of that sort of behavior. You've had the examples from myself, from BobFromBrockley and others. No other potential reliable source used on Wikipedia has claims against them of the nature that the Canary has.
What false statements? I'll list them: "The website for "Stop Funding Fake News" gives no information about who is actually behind it" This was false. "According to our own Wiki article about the campaign, it's led by Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman..." This was false. In addition you made a number of assertions about the organisation without providing a shred of evidence to support your claims: "Stop Funding Fake News and Center for Countering Digital Hate are engaged in political advocacy." Evidence please "Stop Funding Fake News is a political organization, which took a clear stance against Corbyn." Evidence please Also you said "Stop Funding Fake News actually gave concrete examples of The Canary publishing fake news." This was posted to you as well.
You're staking your claim that The Canary is unreliable on the say-so of Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), without giving any reason why we should treat CCDH as credible. I'm not staking my claim on what the CCDH/SFFN at all, my position towards The Canary is based on its activities which have already been stated by others. By mentioning the CCDH, I'm simply providing a prominent organisation that takes a similar attitude to the reliability of the Canary. In regards to the credibility of the CCDH, I've given information about them multiple times in discussions which you have been privy to. However for the benefit of those reading: The CCDH is supported Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson. As well as this, the CEO of the Center, Imran Ahmed sits on the steering committee of the Commission for Countering Extremism (source: here). The CCDH is not some fringe organisation but a prominent organisation that has a role in advising the British government. To give a bit of information of the support the British government has for the CCDH, I quote from Steering Committee website (previously cited): "CCDH have run a number of innovative campaigns, the most recent being the #DontSpreadtheVirus campaign, endorsed by the government, which aims to counter misinformation around the coronavirus." Alssa1 (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
"The website for "Stop Funding Fake News" gives no information about who is actually behind it" This was false. If you go to their website and click on "Our Story", there is nothing about who "we" are. I can't find a single name anywhere on their website of who runs the campaign. The only thing they say is, From 4th May 2020, Stop Funding Fake News has been a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate. That implies that a year after they were founded, they somehow became connected to the "Center for Countering Digital Hate". Who at the CCDH runs SSFN? Or is SSFN still run by the people who founded it (whoever they are)?
"According to our own Wiki article about the campaign, it's led by Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman..." This was false. Literally the first sentence of the body of the Wikipedia article on Stop Funding Fake News reads, The campaign began in March 2019, and was backed by Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman. Those are the only two people I've seen be associated by any publication with SSFN. Maybe there are other people involved with SSFN, but it's not immediately apparent, either from their website or the Wikipedia article.
"Stop Funding Fake News and Center for Countering Digital Hate are engaged in political advocacy." Evidence please The only people that I've seen connected with SSFN, Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman, have campaigned against Corbyn and alleged antisemitism within the Labour Party.
The CCDH is supported Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson. The CCDH is not some fringe organisation but a prominent organisation that has a role in advising the British government. Those facts doesn't help to convince me that the organization is anything other than political. You've just written that CCDH is supported by a Tory government and prominent figures in the anti-Corbyn wing of the Labour Party. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
What frustrates me is that it is incredibly easy to throw out allegations but it takes an enormous amount of effort to debunk them. I've spent the whole day going through yours and BobFromBrockley's allegations (will write about my findings later). While I haven't even gotten halfway, none of those I've investigated have had any substance. Here is some evidence that SFFN is indeed engaged in political advocacy:
1. Mendoza tweets that someone of colour serving in a far-right government is a "turncoat of colour". SFFN replies that "she denies members of the new government their identities & their humanity". Did SFFN also criticize Joe Biden's "You ain't black"? 2. Mendoza tweets that she is "done being lectured on racism by wealthy white centrists." SFFN replies that she denies "Jewish people their identity". 3. Mendoza states that it is "not anti-semitic to compare Israel to Nazi Germany". SFFN replies that "To compare Israel to the Nazis is a specific example of antisemitism included in its international definition." SFFN is referring to the contentious Working Definition of Antisemitism and is in effect calling Mendoza an antisemite. 4. Tweet by SFFN accusing the Canary of "racial divisiveness". 5. SFFN again tweets that Mendoza's comparision of Israel with Nazi Germany is antisemitism. 6. SFFN complains that Canary writers are paid peanuts. Quite hypocritical coming from an organization trying to ruin their business model! 7. SFFN doesn't like that Mendoza has defended Naz Shah's infamous relocate-Israel-to-the-U.S. Facebook post.
The above tweets have absolutely nothing to do with fake news and one would be forgiven for assuming that SFFN's campaign against the Canary is not primarily driven by a desire for stopping fake news. ImTheIP (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The CCDH is supported Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson. They're both establishment figures though. How surprising is it that they would oppose an anti-establishment left-wing publication? G-13114 (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
They're both establishment figures though. How surprising is it that they would oppose an anti-establishment left-wing publication? I wondered how long it would take before someone made the supposed 'anti-establishment' argument... Tell me, what's the difference between the 'anti-establishment' and fringe? Alssa1 (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Focusing exclusively on SFFN is a bit of a red herring given that criticisms of The Canary come from many others, including Corbyn supporters Owen Jones, Richard Seymour and David Osler, but just a comment on the above: Khan is a Muslim former human rights lawyer, Johnson a working class man who entered politics late after years of trade union activism, both member of Corbyn's party, but OK whatever, "establishment". SFFN has never criticised Corbyn, and at the majority of the websites it targets are on the far right. Among the advertisers that took action on the basis of their work are The World Transformed (a pro-Corbyn group), Oxford and Bath Universities, and the Law Society. Of course it is fine to question the basis of their designation but it is clear that they are a serious organisation. I'm not sure if their briefing on the Canary has been linked here yet: (also follow the link from there to their Twitter content on The Canary which has a lot more detail) BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Re ImTheIP the seven SFFN tweets you mention (which I don't think are among those which anyone arguing for "generally unreliable" has posted on this board?) are part of longer threads, and don't themselves make the case that The Canary publish fake news but give context for the claims in the threads. For example, you don't link to the tweet where they link to this left-wing feminist describing The Canary's Kuenssberg campaign as a "sexist hate campaign"[53] or the tweet where they point out the Canary editor's closeness to David Icke[54]. The point about the paying peanuts is that the business model creates a style of journalism that favours sensationalist clickbait over accuracy (a bit like some of the tabloids deprecated by Wikipedia).[55] You didn't take on the fact that The Canary published the Trump machine's Seth Rich fantasies[56] or the issues about the smear on Goette-Luciak.[57] To be clear: my own position is not that The Canary regularly deliberately publishes fake news such that it should be deprecated, but simply that a large enought number of reliable sources have raised alarm bells such that we should designate it as generally unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bobfrombrockley: I linked to the tweets to demonstrate that SFFN engages in political advocacy. Alleging that The Canary's editor-in-chief, Kerry-Anne Mendoza, is an antisemite for comparing Israel with Nazi Germany is, given the brohauha about pro-Corbynite antisemitism, to engage in political advocacy. SFFN's tweet about The Canary paying peanuts is innuendo irrelevant to its reliability. It's not like Mendoza invented clickbait journalism and there is no basis for the claim that its compensation model affects its journalistic qualities. All journalists are living with tight deadlines, X-hundred words thresholds, and are measured by the advertising revenue (i.e clicks) they generate.
As I wrote in my previous comment, it takes an enormous amount of time to research and respond to each and every allegations and my gut feeling is that most just scroll past it anyway so that's why I didn't bother.
The Canary published two articles by Max Blumenthal about Carl David Goette-Luciak in 2018. The first one on September 28 and the second one on October 4. The backstory is that since April 2018 there had been violent clashes between supporters of President Daniel Ortega and supporters of the opposition party, the Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS). Blumenthal alleges that Goette-Luciak was a "novice reporter" who published pieces littered with falsehoods that reinforce the opposition’s narrative promoting regime. That's a smear if it isn't true. However, Blumenthal presents much evidence demonstrating that Goette-Luciak indeed promoted MRS's narrative.
For example, Goette-Luciak cited an MRS leader saying: With 200 political prisoners and [new] murders every day. But according to Blumenthal, most murder victims were Ortega supporters. He reported on violence committed by Ortega's police forces but not on violence committed by MRS supporters. Blumenthal writes: In a separate incident this June, Goette-Luciak appeared momentarily in a highly disturbing video filmed by 100% Noticias. He could be seen taking photos of a mob of opposition thugs in the act of kidnapping and beating an ageing Sandinista member they had found squatting on a local oligarch’s abandoned property. Oddly, Goette-Luciak published no photos of the incident and did not report on it. Blumenthal also links to photos showing Goette-Luciak speaking to MRS leaders.
Days after Blumenthal published his article, Goette-Luciak was deported. A reporter at BuzzFeed News claimed that Blumenthal's article caused the Nicaraguan government to deport Goette-Luciak. A laughable and unsubstantiated claim. In the follow-up article, The Canary included a letter written by Goette-Luciak's former colleague in Nicaragua stating that their work was not very objective: I must be extremely clear: in the six months we lived and worked together in Nicaragua we were both very open about our plan to use our friendships with Nicaraguan opposition figures to push for the end of the Sandinista government and create careers for ourselves as journalists or consultants in the process.
It should be emphasized that this not a left vs. right kind of thing; both Blumenthal and Goette-Luciak are left-wing voices. Goette-Luciak has, as far as I can tell, not responded to Blumenthal's allegations. ImTheIP (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment I just want to make it clear that although I said "use with caution", by that I did not mean that I thought Canary to be unreliable, merely that they might overegg the pudding on occasion, nothing more. For what it is worth, my impression is that the majority of attacks on Canary are politically motivated.Selfstudier (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Generally unreliable. As Iridescent points out, this website houses the lunatic fringe of British politics. It has a downright awful reputation. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. This is about factual reliability, not politics. Whether anyone considers the left wing of the Labour Party to be the "lunatic fringe" is irrelevant here, and no basis for a determination of "generally unreliable". -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I went through all the Canary articles that have been mentioned by editors in the discussion. I found three articles where an identified error had been made by The Canary. They were the Laura K and fracking stories that went to IMPRESS and the story that was described as "it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS". The Canary acknowledged the error in the first 2 cases and took appropriate action. It appears that The Canary itself identified the third error and made the correction which related to The Canary's description of a pilgrimage as a march. The other stories involve innuendo, opinion, guilt by association and other diversions that don't impact on reliability. The story titled "The Canary Deleted A False Viral Story About The Sun's Coverage Of The Manchester Attack" was discussed by Press Gazette which stated: "The Canary story remains live on its website with an update at the foot of the article that reads: "The Sun contacted The Canary to request that we update the piece to reflect that The Sun went to print prior to the concert bombing. The paper issued an updated front page subsequently. We’re happy to do so" ". Burrobert (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC) I'm not saying that we should necessarily accept this as some kind of gold standard but nor do I think we should ignore it. Their list of questionable sources seems not so bad either.Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes that is an interesting assessment. We seem to have ruled MBFC as an unreliable source mainly on the basis that it is self-published. Anyway, we can toss its opinion into the pot and stir to see what comes out. Is it too early in the discussion to ask an uninvolved editor to look at what has been said and decide what effect it should have on our rating of The Canary? Burrobert (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
That and NewsGuard, so that's two independent fact check sites that have said it's reliable. G-13114 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable - per MB/FC and Newsguard. Also per IMPRESS regulation. And per everything else in the lengthy 'why you can trust us' section. El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I will further note that Stop Funding Fake News is a liberal/centrist organisation that seems to be focused on driving independent internet news sites that are outside of the traditional political spectrum out of business. I think that literally any other critic of The Canary is a better source to make a judgement on. Ideally we'd look at specific articles/instances as some have posted above. El komodos drago (talk to me) 12:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable per my previous comments. Objections seem to stem from from opposition to The Canaries political stance and innuendo, rather than any clear demonstration of unreliability. The fact that The Canary has voluntarily signed up to be regulated shows that they take accuracy seriously, as any breaches could have a serious financial cost which could be crippling to a small publication. And as noted, where there have been inaccurate stories, they have generally been corrected quite swiftly. As stated earlier. I think a precedent was set by the Morning Star which is a publication of similar political leanings. G-13114 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
True or false? :) Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
There's also this from Jacobin. So it appears that CCDH and SFFN are run by people linked to the anti-Corbyn faction of the Labour Party. Who would have guessed! G-13114 (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
G-13114, at this point the anti-Corbyn faction of the Labour Party consists of basically everyone in the Labour Party minus whoever lost their job with the change in leadership and Corbyn himself. GPinkerton (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable. I would go into details but Dweller and others have covered the reasons. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable per Thucydides and G-13114. --NSH001 (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I would also ask certain editors (you know who you are) to read WP:BLUDGEON. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable. Known for being hyper-partisan and pushing conspiracy theories.[58] An alt-left website closely associated with the Corbyn campaign (an "outrider" according to Corbyn,[59] to the point that a Corbyn aide said that they were providing scripts for it.[60] Compared to InfoWars in terms of promoting conspiracy theories.[61] Vici Vidi (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

arlingtoncemetery dot net[edit]

This WP search [62] gives us 600+ results for From what I see, the website is user-generated. And other than the website URL and e-mail address I see nothing about who publishes the website. It seems that people can e-mail info to the webmaster, but we can't see how the info is vetted. MOREOVER the url is not secure/unsafe. And a "http://" does not work on it. I recommend that we add it to WP:RSP. – S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Generally unreliable. is a self-published website. The welcome page states near the bottom: "This is a privately owned and maintained, not-for-profit, website which is supported privately. As such, it has no affiliation whatsoever with the United States Government or the United States Army. Accordingly, the content here is solely the responsibility of the Webmaster. This Site Is (c) Michael Robert Patterson 1994- 2013, Except Where Noted." The website contains a description of Michael Robert Patterson, which does not claim that he is a subject-matter expert. Also, much of the content on the website is copied and pasted from other sources (e.g. newspapers); those pages are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia per WP:COPYLINK. might be useful for research, but it is not a reliable source for direct citations.

    I do have to note that the lack of HTTPS on the website, although less than ideal for web security, does not affect the website's reliability for Wikipedia's purposes. — Newslinger talk 09:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment It's a self-published source. There are better sources. The website does a fairly good job at indicating where it is getting its information. It appears with many of the names to provide a newspaper obituary. Use the obituary given and do a newspaper archive search, and then cite the newspaper in which you have confirmed the material. If you want to confirm just that the individual is buried in Arlington cemetery, use the find a grave feature of the official government website. I'm not sure how people want to give credit to Michael Patterson for his original research in finding the obituaries and compiling all the material, but it is kind of important. It's not a copyright violation, however, it can be considered plagiarism by some academics. I do think that the replacement of the citations should be done properly. Blind stripping of war veteran material from biographies is a sensitive topic in many countries around the world. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your observations. As I have been culling citations from WP I observe that very few are worthwhile in terms of reader helpfulness. The webpages sometimes simply repeat news stories without attribution. When there is attribution it is often vague, hence the pages do not serve to WP:V the info. (And as I progress in this effort I shall keep your admonition about blind stripping in mind.) In any case, is this a site that should go onto the WP:RSP? Strike out because this isn't a frequently discussed source.S. Rich (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 17:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources re: Andy Ngo[edit]

From Andy Ngo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

On May 1, 2019, Ngo attended demonstrations and counter protests in Portland associated with International Workers Day or May Day.[1][2] He reported being punched and blasted with pepper spray while filming two separate May Day events.[2]
In August 2019, a video of Ngo surfaced where he is seen laughing, while standing next to the members of the far-right group Patriot Prayer as they plan an attack on anti-fascist patrons at Cider Riot following the May Day protests.[3][4][5][6] He later followed the group to the bar where they attacked the patrons. The video is part of the court documents in the ongoing lawsuit against Patriot Prayer members for causing the riot. One of the victims of the attack was knocked unconscious with a baton and suffered a broken vertebra—Ngo later posted a video of her being attacked and identified her online.[7] Portland Mercury quoted an undercover antifascist embedded in Patriot Prayer saying that Ngo has an "understanding" with the far-right group, that the group "protects him and he protects them".[8]


  1. ^ Acker, Lizzy; Njus, Elliot; Ramakrishnan, Jayati; Williams, Kale (2019-05-02). "Hundreds gather for May Day demonstrations in SW, NE Portland". The Oregonian. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
  2. ^ a b Kavanaugh, Shane Dixon (2020-06-05). "Conservative writer sues Portland antifa group for $900k, claims 'campaign of intimidation and terror'". The Oregonian. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
  3. ^ Gais, Hannah (September 11, 2019). "The Making of Andy Ngo". Jewish Currents.
  4. ^ Sommer, Will (August 27, 2019). "Right-Wing Star Andy Ngo Exits Quillette After Damning Video Surfaces". The Daily Beast. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
  5. ^ Juarez, Sierra (August 24, 2019). "Andy Ngo seen laughing as Patriot Prayer members plan an attack in newly emerged video". The Daily Dot.
  6. ^ MacDonald, Tyler (August 25, 2019). "Andy Ngo Captured On Video With Patriot Prayer As They Reportedly Plan Attack On Antifa". The Inquisitr.
  7. ^ Owen, Tess (August 27, 2019). "Super Awkward for Right-Wing Blogger Andy Ngo to Make a Cameo in Video of Plot Against Antifa". Vice News.
  8. ^ Zielinski, Alex (August 26, 2019). "Undercover in Patriot Prayer: Insights From a Vancouver Democrat Who's Been Working Against the Far-Right Group from the Inside". Portland Mercury. Retrieved August 27, 2019.

It seems to me that The Oregonaian and Portland Mercury are valid sources here, but The Daily Beast, Vice News, The Daily Dot, Inquisitr and Jewish Currents? I don't think we should be using those. What's the view here in respect of controversial content? Guy (help! - typo?) 14:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion Guy. I think the Portland Mercury is a poor source given the specific content comes from a wp:NEWSBLOG. However, it was re-reported by others so, even if NEWSBLOG applies coverage by others give's weight to mentioning the blogtown commentary. My bigger concern is that what we really have is limited hard facts (Ngo is visible in the video and clearly near the PP member, the person who provided the video makes claims X, Y and Z) plus commentary (Ngo did X in response to..., Ngo could hear Y). Several other sources offer similar descriptions of what their authors say they saw in the video. At the same time Reason ran an article which was critical of the analysis performed by these sources [[63]]. Reason is again a mix of commentary (like the other sources the author watches the video then assesses what he sees) and factual reporting (reaching out to both Ngo and the PM for comments/confirmation of facts). I'm generally OK keeping the sources like The Daily Beast and Vice News but I think we need to also offer Reason even if with less WEIGHT. I'm less comfortable with the Daily Dot as this isn't basic internet culture. I recall previous discussions being critical of Inquisitr but I don'r recall the disposition to Jewish Currents. Do they offer anything beyond repeats of the comments of other sources? (edit conflict) A lot of editors felt this general text was critical for inclusion in the Ngo article (in particular the discussion of the video was, per a recent RfC, required to be in the article lead). I think the weaker sources could be trimmed without cutting text from the article. Springee (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
JzG, we say at RS/P: "The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons" "The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article" and "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications". I don't quite see what would be wrong with Jewish Currents, they relaunched as what appears to be a serious magazine with Peter Beinart as their editor-at-large. What exactly is the problem with Jewish Currents? Vexations (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Vexations, I am not a huge fan of tabloidish sources, which Daily Beast and Vice both are IMO. None of these sources seem to have much in the way of gravitas. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
JzG, well, I prefer serious sources over tabloid-y sources too, but Jewish Current seems to be a bit more serious than the others, not less. Vexations (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Vexations, probably, yes. But it's recently undergone a serious change, and that probably colours my view of it (it was previously distinctly lightweight). Guy (help! - typo?) 23:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Just trying to find if anyone else reported on this brings up a source from Reason that should be included as well [64] which criticizes how those sources are describing the video itself and includes Reason's responses from Ngo. Also Rolling Stone.
But at least Daily Beast and Vice are generally reliable sources, and going by these sources, the only thing I would say is they should be named here, eg "Ngo is seen in the video to be alongside the Proud Boys, according to the Daily Beast and Vice". --Masem (t) 14:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Masem, Reason is also outside the "green box of joy" on the Ad Fontes chart (gets the same reliability rating as Sputnik). The problem with biased sources is that no partisan source is going to be anything other than partisan about Andy Ngo. His mission to attack Antifa and his apparent fondness for actual fascists make him a polarising figure, which is why I think we should stick to the most reliable and least biased sources rather than casting around for sources to "balance" low quality partisan sources on one side or the other. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The way this is being presented (what the video presents) is only apparently coming from lower quality sources. But the video seems important to be describing. That a video exists that includes Ngo with PBs in the hours before the May incident does not seem to be in doubt (that's coming from the Portland paper), what is in question is exactly what Ngo was actually doing in it. Which is why falling back to attributing by name those describing Ngo's "laughing" helps to set that that's an opinion of those sources, and the Reason article, specific quoting Ngo, is Ngo's claims against what Daily Beast et al were asserting he was doing. A they-said, he-said situation that we're not saying who was right or wrong. Perhaps the phrasing order in the sentence is weird, as the video should be explained to be part of the expose from the Portland paper, and then go on to explain the interpretation of it, all with attribution from that point on. --Masem (t) 15:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Masem, I tend to agree, and it should probably be excluded altogether. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
See the (current) last comment in this thread that I made (17:07, 24 November 2020), in which this section is actually duplicative of the Quillette dismissal section. There are parts of this to document that are directly tied to his dismissal, and which as a PUBLICFIGURE, we should document fairly within BLP concerns, but they may already be documented there in the dismissal section. --Masem (t) 18:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Guy, I think we need to be careful about the "green box of joy". Reason is well within what Adfonts considers to be a "good" source and scores similar accuracy and less bias than the Huffington Post. The chart also puts Epoch Times (deprecated I believe) as more reliable and less biased than generally allowed sources like Vanity Fair, Daily Beast, and Salon. Springee (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Springee, sure, it's a pointer, not an authority. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The sources are fine, there do appear to be issues with the text... For instance "an attack on anti-fascist patrons at Cider Riot” fails verification, I can see sources which say the bar is affiliated with antifa but the ones I’ve looked at so far havent explicitly described the patrons as such. (Update: I don't think we should be using the article from the Portland Mercury’s Blogtown vertical, thank you to Springee for pointing that out to me) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
It would probably be better to replete the claims that the bar is popular with anti-fascist patrons and separately that there was an attack on the patrons. I'm not overly happy with the term "attack" vs "brawl" (used by the Portland liquor commission and a number of sources). [warning OR here] In watching the videos of the event it appears the PP showed up both sides talked a lot of trash then finally one side or the other almost timidly threw something or sprayed pepper spray. This wasn't something where group A sees group B and immediately starts swinging. Springee (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I don’t see "the bar is popular with anti-fascist patrons” in the sources either, which one you pulling it from? I see that the bar is associated with antifa but I don’t see blanket claims made about their patrons (it seems to be in most aspects an ordinary bar, I’m not sure blanket claims about its patrons even could be made). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't recall as this was from memory. However, a number of sources support the claim (based on quick web search). These say the brawl involved antifa or Rose City Antifa [[65]], [[66]]. This article just says antifa friendly [[67]]. Regardless, your caution with phrasing is prudent. Springee (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I see "pub patrons, possibly with ties to the antifa.” from OPB and "left-wing patrons at the pub,” and "A number of anti-fascist, or antifa, activists were at the pub on May 1” from Oregon live. Neither of those to me support the claim. I think we need to stick to descriptions of the business’ affiliation and leave broad statements about the patrons out entirely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The "Reason" (gigglesnortlaugh) article is from their "media criticism" section, which is editorial content. Not reliable in any way, shape, or form. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah the Reason article is a joke... But as far as I can tell no one is seriously suggesting we use it. Also perhaps you meant to put this comment somewhere else? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The only use of the Reason article is to capture the quoted Ngo's claims of what he was doing to counter the claims of what Daily Beast/Vice are saying (a BLP/NPOV requirement) We don't have to describe the "media got it wrong" angle the author presents. --Masem (t) 16:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Masem called it "a source from Reason that should be included as well" [68]. I felt I should check and from everything I see and remember Reason is somewhere below Sputnik or Epoch Times in terms of reliability. Reading the last RFC, the arguments against it are far more compelling [69] given "Reason"'s connections to holocaust denial. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I will recant the need to include the Reason's writer's statements for this, since I can't find anyone else claiming that the "media was wrong" about the video and that it is an op-ed more than the other pieces. But what did strike me were Ngo's statements quoted in that which can't be ignored. While Reason is a source that should be very carefully used if used for facts in politically charged articles like this, using it to source Ngo's counterclaims is perfectly fine and actually required. But again, I recant what I said earlier and don't think any MORE of that Reason article is needed. --Masem (t) 16:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Another issue with this article is the subject is notable enough to get some attention but not notable enough to really get detailed scrutiny from all sides. Their are plenty of examples of the media getting things wrong but since only a few stories cover it we don't have a bunch of articles saying "this isn't right". In this case Reason decided gap between the hard evidence and was was reported was significant enough to mention. Springee (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Even if your gut tells you the media is getting this wrong, that doesn't change our WP:RS policy; there's absolutely enough coverage for us to reflect the overall consensus of reliable sources. In fact, saying "well, yes, but I think the reliable sources are getting it wrong" is an appeal to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - an admission that the perspective you want the article to cover is not citeable and does not accurately reflect mainstream coverage. Arguing that we should put our thumb on the scale and use a source we otherwise would not based on your personal gut feeling that the media has not portrayed this subject the way you would prefer is obviously not reasonable. If you think the media is getting things wrong, the thing to do is send in letters requesting corrections, or to wait to see if Soave's opinion is covered in more fact-based reporting. (Also, I don't agree that this hasn't gotten much coverage - there are eight sources above for this relatively narrow aspect of the topic; they vary in quality, but some are quite good. There's no actual reason to think they got it wrong or made mistakes outside of your personal gut reaction.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Please review the sources. Of the 8 citations, both Oregonian links don't mention the video (one is from before the video) and Blogtown is a news blog for an alternative new weekly. You are concerned about bias [[70]] but are these unbiased, mainstream sources? Removing Blogtown and the two Oregonian articles which do not discuss the video we are left with The Daily Beast, Daily Dot, The Inquisitr, Vice News and The Jewish Currents. Not exactly mainstream. Are you claiming that analysis of the video by sites like the Daily Beast are better than Reason because Reason is biased? Let's turn to the Adfontes media chart[[71]]. Reason is rated rather squarely in the analysis end of things and scores a 9.9 for bias and 37.6 for reliability (per the Adfontes above 32 is "generally good"). That puts it as less biased than CNN, NY Mag and Rolling Stones. So where does The Daily Beast sit? 35.3A, -18.6B. So DB is a bit less accurate but nearly 2x the bias score. Vice is 39.5, -13.8. So a bit better on accuracy but again a lot more biased. (Note that the direct link here Reason as 38.27, 4.12 [[72]]) I'm not suggesting we say Reason's account is the correct one but we have 5 RSs on one side (6 if you include Blogtown) and Reason on the other. This isn't fringe so much as a question of weight.
You suggest I want to change the RS guideline. Do you think we were following RS by citing Blogtown? The information related to Ngo and the video come from essentially three places. We have the video itself which objectively only proves that Ngo was near PP members. We have the testimony of "Ben" who is a "a self-described “everyday anti-fascist,”". I'm sure we would treat Ben as unbiased and 100% objective. Finally we have various sources saying what they think the video shows (or saying Blogtown said it shows X). That is analysis which is the same thing Reason did. The best you have is the claim that Reason is just an op-ed... even though Reason actually did reporting by contacting people. Did Daily Dot do any actual reporting or did they just repeat what Blogtown said. Wasn't the Daily Beast doing analysis/speculation when it suggested Ngo was fired because the video came out? Perhaps you can tell us when these things are fact based reporting vs Op-Ed when neither claims to be Op-Ed. Fortunately, Masem is showing a level head here and asking the better question, why are we going into such detail given the quality of the sources? Springee (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Springee, Aquillion says it so much better than I do. We should generally mirror what's happening in RS, including when they get it wrong. We cannot know they are getting it wrong until we are informed, after the fact, by RS, not info from unreliable ones. If something changes, we can always change it here. To do otherwise, because we think they are wrong, would be substituting our own OR, wishful thinking, RGW's thinking, crystal ball thinking for dependence on RS, a phenomenon we see all the time with editors who depend on unreliable sources. They don't provide any sources to back hunches, for obvious reasons, unless they are newbies. So if our hunches tell us RS are getting it wrong, our hunches are likely being informed by bad sources. OTOH, if there is disagreement among RS, that's a different matter, and those hunches will be argued by providing those RS. It's okay to get hunches from RS, but not from unreliable ones. -- Valjean (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I have assumed part of my argument was clear. I don't see that your comments reflect what I'm arguing and the suggestion that this is a gut thing is very wrong. To be clear, I'm not stating the Daily Beast et al are wrong or that their claims are not adequately supported. I'm saying the counter arguments made by Reason are sufficiently reliable to be included as a minority POV. Reason does say the other sources aren't adequately supporting their claims. Reason is a RS. Since it is just one source we can't say "Daily Beast is wrong because Reason says X". However, what we now have is sources that disagree so we can present it as a dissenting POV. I understand that some editors say Reason is an op-ed thus not reliable while the Daily Beast is a news story thus reliable but on what grounds? Neither is listed as "Op-Ed", the sort of thing where the publisher says "the views and opinions don't reflect that of the editorial staff etc". Both contain a mix of fact reporting and interpretation/analysis. It is 100% interpretation to suggest Ngo was fired from Quillette because of this video yet we choose to allow that content. Interpreting what Ngo is doing/hearing during the video is analysis. So my question has been, why would we treat The Daily Beast's interpretation differently vs Reason? Some argue Reason is biased but at least Adfonts says Reason is less biased than The Daily Beast. Aquillion's argument avoids addressing this point and falls back on a view that one source(s) is branded reliable while the other isn't but that just isn't true. My argument isn't based on a hunch, it's based on NPOV saying we should include minority views even if they aren't given equal weight. Still, Masem's alternative suggestion nicely avoids this issue and makes a lot of sense. Springee (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I think Reason's assessment of what the video shows is just as valid as the other sources. That the video exists and shows Ngo is not a disputed fact. It is disputed that Ngo overheard and thus was aware of plans to attack Cider Riot. All the sources are basically watching the video and trying to decide what they think Ngo was doing/listening to. That is analysis/commentary, not factual reporting. That they came to different conclusions is significant. Springee (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
As you say the Reason article is "is analysis/commentary, not factual reporting.” Since Ngo is a living person thats not gonna fly, we have to be strict in our adherence to WP:BLP no matter what our opinion of him may be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Reason is not accusing Ngo of wrongdoing or similar. Other sources who are doing similar commentary/analysis are accusing Ngo of wrongdoing (ie knowingly hiding foreknowledge of a crime). Why are we less critical of their commentary/analysis? Part of what we are dealing with here is the problematic blend of factual reporting (video from this day showing Ngo in same shots as PP members, "under cover antifa member "Ben" saying X") and analysis/commentary (Ngo is doing X in the video). Why should we only include commentary that says X but not commentary that says Y? Consider that the other sources did not reach out to Ngo for comment nor did they include reference to Ngo disputing the claim (PM only added it after the fact). Reason actually did reach out to PM and Ngo for comment. Springee (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Whether or not they are accusing Ngo of wrongdoing is irrelevant vis-a-vis BLP, remember BLP applies equally to "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable” information. I dont see any other analysis/commentary pieces, the others all appear to be factual reporting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually it is. Claiming someone was complicit in a crime or aware a crime was about to occur yet failed to mention it is an extraordinary claim and thus requires stronger sourcing than saying they weren't. Any time a news source moves from clear description to subjective description you have analysis. PM's Blogtown says "Ngo can be seen laughing at jokes". That is analysis of the video. So why would we accept Blogtown saying that but refuse Reason saying "Ngo is not laughing at jokes"? Blogtown includes testimony from "Ben" but is "Ben" a reliable witness? Ben is a self declared under cover antifa operative. Any chance they have bias? Springee (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I hadn’t noticed that the Mercury article was from their Blogtown vertical, to me that does change how we can use it and I have updated my original comment accordingly. Thank you for the shockingly relevant whataboutism, I think thats the first time I've ever seen it be constructive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
As I was about write more here to check what the Ngo article states, I see that what we're talking about here in Guy's OP post is also duplicating to a point text in Andy Ngo#Departure from Quillette which is using some of these sources in question but from the standpoint of how they related factually to Ngo's departure. In other words, I would try to find a way to reduce the May Day section text (what's quoted above) and focus more on the the latter with the cavaets already in play, which the departure section already covers. There, the sources that are being questioned here are being used very appropriately (in that the publication of certain things triggered events hence their inclusion). In the May Day section, one might just have to forward section link to say "Ngo's interactions with the Proud Boys during the 2019 May Day led to his departure from Quillette in August 2019, as described below." and leave it at that. --Masem (t) 17:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Masem, this is a sound idea. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • So what is the summary here? My feeling is people question the use of Blogtown. Ngo's counter arguments are DUE per ABOUTSELF and perhaps some sections need some heavy rework? Springee (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • No, Ngo's comments definitely don't pass WP:ABOUTSELF, since they're unduly self-serving. For stuff like that we should wait until it's covered in a non-opinion source (and, ideally, a neutral one, but definitely a non-opinion one.) It absolutely can't be cited to Reason, which WP:RSP notes is a biased source that introduces weight issues - something that can only be cited to an opinion piece from there isn't really usable. (Also, by my reading, you have been arguing for using that particular weak source for months now without success? I would argue it's well past WP:DROPTHESTICK time on that - if Soave's opinions on the topic are noteworthy they should be reflected somewhere more usable eventually, but ultimately one person's WP:BIASED opinion-piece saying "well I disagree with the mainstream analysis" isn't really all that notable on its own. Who is Soave and why is it such a big deal how he feels about the topic?) --Aquillion (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comments from Ngo directly responding to accusations made about him (here, about what he was doing in the video) are never "unduly self-serving", and the only reason not to consider their use would be if the source was something like the Daily Mail where we know they may fabricate material, which is not something Reason is known for. If we have a BLP and there is criticism towards that BLP that we know the BLP has responded to, we should absolutely be including that, but with reasonable concern for due weight and of course making sure it is asserted as claim to the person in question. (And this is a more complex situation than a simple denial like WP:MANDY would involve). "Unduly self-serving" would be including commentary from Ngo from a questionable RS that stands on its own and is not in direct response to anything. Eg if Ngo wrote an essay on his stance on the media that was published in Reason, that would not be appropriate to include if no one else references it, as it would be self-serving. But we have a clear situation where the media has made a specific claim of what Ngo was doing with the Proud Boys, and Ngo has responded to something different to clarify. We can't say who is right (as the context here is that regardless of what the video showed, it led to his dismissal from Quillette), so we present it as a they-said, he-said description of the viewpoints and leave it at that. (But as I've cleared up above, the rest of that Reason article doesn't need to be touched) --Masem (t) 23:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    Masem, there is a regrettable tendency on Wikipedia to mirror the news media's equally regrettable tendency to give the accused the last word. 156 bazillion people all say X is a fascist, but, to placate their legal department, they close with "X denies being a fascist". We don't need to do that when solid fact-based sources say a thing, and the subject's denials are nothing beyond "nu-uh" and are not covered elsewhere. If mainstream sources note that X denies being a fascist, then we source the denial from the mainstream sources. If they don't, we don't need to go to primary sources to do their job for them. It's not our job to increase the prominence of denials that nobody else finds credible enough to report, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
    If this were a simple denial like MANDY, I would agree we'd not need to say anything. But this situation is more complex. First, there's no question Ngo was seen with the PBs in the video, he's not denying that. What's in question is the attitude he had in the video (eg was he laughing with the PBs?) And this is where the question of how biased the sources that use those descriptors like the Daily Beast come into play. They are describing it in one way, and Ngo, in the Reason, is saying they are completely wrong (the Reason author is also trying to say that, but I'm not considering their words here). This is more than just denying a claim but trying to clarify what the video was showing since he was actually there. Now, we don't necessary have to present it as a "last word" thing, we could say "While Ngo claims he was only watching the group with disinterest, The Daily Beast and others described him to be laughing with the other Proud Boys members in the video." or something like. As a point, unless we're talking a MANDY situation, it should be a matter of a last word fact: when it comes to a controversial situation where there is no clear objective answer (as what Ngo was doing w/ the PBs in that video), our job should be to document the fundamental argument of all sides then apply UNDUE if there is further commentary; here this would be spelling out the two takes on that video (Ngo's side and Daily Beast/et al's version) then adding on to that as that aids the supported claims from the media that Ngo has a close relationship with the PBs.
    Now, of course, the problem is totally avoided if we avoid saying anything about what the video showed, short of that he was seen with the PBs in it in the hours before the bar attack, and thus once that video was mentioned by the Portland paper, it led to his Quillette leave. I know the video is being used in the trail related to the PBs but in terms of Ngo's career, seems to have no further involvement, so staying to the factual parts of the video and omitting trying to describe any actions would seem far easier and avoids several weak or poor sources. That avoids not only the need to include Ngo's response but also the questionable descriptions from the Daily Beast et al. This is again thinking big, long-term writing and less about trying to document all of Ngo's faults. --Masem (t) 00:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The fact that Ngo is making assertions about facts and interpretation makes it worse, not better. That is a plainly self-serving reinterpretation of events that requires a high-quality secondary source to support - it is absolutely not the sort of thing we should source to the subject themselves or to an opinion piece. Likewise, "as a compromise, let's just ignore the interpretation and analysis of reliable secondary sources entirely" is silly. We're required to cover topics according to the best sources available; in this case it's very clear what consensus those sources have reached. --Aquillion (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • We don't need to take Ngo's version as fact, just as his claims, and we aren't saying anything about the interpretation of the other sources. And if making a counterstatement of this type is self-serving, then any BLP's denial of any event that they were called out on - say, of sexual misbehavior for example - would have to be treated the same, which is of course BS and not going to fly. "Unduly" is key here; Ngo was called out doing something, reasonably he wants to claim something different. We don't have to believe him, and we don't have to give equal weight to his claims, but we shouldn't be absent any of his statements. --Masem (t) 01:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • He is making an extremely self-serving claim about the facts. If that claim is noteworthy, a reliable secondary source will pick up on it. If not, it is completely inappropriate for us to cover it via WP:SPS. The purpose of the self-serving claim rule is that we don't cite controversial interpretations of the facts, such as these, to parties with a clear self-interest. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If someone accuses you of lying do you consider it extremely self serving to refute the claim? Also a reliable, secondary source did pick up on it. Conversely, the sources that are accusing Ngo are lower quality sources (Blogtown, Daily Beast, Daily Dot). Springee (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Why wouldn't it be unduly self-serving? It contradicts all mainstream reporting ands present a version of events, which no news source supports, that plainly casts him in a better light than the facts established elsewhere. WP:BLP absolutely does not say that we should give additional weigh to denials or to favorable things subjects say about themselves; it says that we should reflect what high-quality, reliable secondary sources have said. A denial should be included when covered by high-quality secondary sources that can be cited for statements of fact, and should not be included otherwise. Usually denials get such coverage, which may be where your confusion comes from; but by my reading WP:BLP specifically disallows a denial that disputes the facts and is not covered in reliable secondary sources, because it will always be unduly self-serving. WP:BLP is about getting such articles right according to the highest-quality sources, not about giving subjects special dispensation, regardless of sourcing, to dispute the facts in whatever way they please. --Aquillion (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • BLP is about doing no harm to BLPs, and while sourcing claims about the BLP to the highest quality sources is important if not required, when it comes what the BLP says about themselves, that's not a requirement at all (hence why BLPSPS has that callout). We should be trying to write articles like Ngo as neutrally and impartially as possible, and that means we don't automatically take the BLP's side nor the media's side on a controversial situation, and if that means that to present a BLP's side in a controversial situation using a BLPSPS, we should (MANDY-type simple denial situations notwithstanding). Yes, usually sources would document a BLP's response, but given that we're starting with sources like the Daily Beast and Vice (off-mainstream sources), I would not expect a reliable source to actually follow up on this situation. But this points to the fact that this aspect of the story (what Ngo's attitude while he was seen with the PBs in the video) may be one of those things that is coming from poor sources (not unreliable, but biased in this area as indicated in the OP part of this thread) and when considering the long-term factors here, it is simply better to focus on the facts there is no doubt of: this video of Ngo standing with the PBs in the hours before the May 2019 attack exists, it surfaced in August 2019 via the Portland paper, and shortly thereafter Quillette let him go. It avoids weak sourcing or having to justify any inclusion of Ngo's comments which is far better in the long run. --Masem (t) 01:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • No, that's precisely the sort of thing that the "unduly self-serving" clause exists to prevent. The WP:SPS exception is for uncontroversial things like birthdates and numerical details, not for people to present self-serving interpretations of controversial aspects of their biography. Likewise, "I don't think we should cover this at all because the sources are weak, but if we do, we have to use this even weaker source" isn't a coherent or reasonable position to take. Our responsibility is to, an WP:BLP says, get it right, not to crowbar in a WP:FALSEBALANCE where we dig through the muck for a competing counter-claim to every credibly sourced fact. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we need to revisit what counts as unduly self-serving.[[73]] Ngo saying "I discuss this in my new book available this March at..." would be self serving as it doesn't contribute to the discussion of the event. Adding Ngo's blog post about a new podcast, speaker series, unrelated interviews etc is unduely self serving. Including statements where Ngo says, "I'm just trying to keep the city safe from XYZ" would be self serving. Responding to direct accusations of being complicit in crime, no that isn't self serving. This isn't a false balance case. [edit: WP:BLPPUBLIC also explicitly states "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." Springee (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)]Springee (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This, and why I think WP:MANDY is also useful to avoid including what would be "simple" rebuttals of criticism or accusations made against a person or group, as to set the bounds on the other side for inclusion so that, as Guy as put it, we're not always including someone's last word if it is simply "no I did't". We're supposed to be documenting controversies and it is clearly unclear exactly what Ngo is doing with the PBs in the tape (which he is not denying he was seen in, he's not changing that reality). Daily Beast et al claim one thing about Ngo's actual behavior and intent but they're only going off the video and you have to read that through the lens of those being sources that have no love for Ngo or PBs. Ngo is claiming another. We don't know who is who so if we're going to include the Daily Beast et al's description of Ngo's behavior that they are interpreting from the video , it is absolutely required for neutrality to include Ngo's view as it is at least published. If we had no statement from Ngo, if it were a simple MANDY "no I wasn't" claim, we'd not have to. But, as I've alternatively suggested, the entire situation can ignore the details of the video (outside Ngo being seen with the PBs in the hours before the bar attack) and mention it in the context that once the video surfaced, it led to his dismissal at Quillette, which seems far easier and more neutral overall. --Masem (t) 15:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Including the denial is fine, including their version of events is not covered in including their denial though. BLP public is about adding “X denied the allegations” not “X explained that Y and Z were doing 8 and therefore the allegations were baseless which is supported by K because they hate the concept of 2 which according to X obviously means Y set X up.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Wanted to jump in here with a clarification I also posted on Talk:Andy Ngo: The original source for the allegations is the Portland Mercury, not "Blogtown". Springee in particular keeps calling the Portland Mercury source "Blogtown", either out of genuine confusion or because they want to impugn its credibility under WP:NEWSBLOG. Here's the Portland Mercury's front page. Click on any link that's not in a specific separate section and it will go to a /blogtown/ link with the big "BLOGTOWN" above it. "Blogtown" is just the catch-all category for Portland Mercury articles online. It's not a newsblog, it's not any type of blog, it would be like me referring to the Reason article Springee is fond of as "the Media Criticism article" all the time. Loki (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Why would it be called "blogtown" if it isn't a blog? Conversely, if this was reliable journalism why didn't it reach out to Ngo for comment? Reason reached out to both Ngo and The Portland Mercury for comment. Is that typical of an op-ed? Let's be honest here, the sources that are accusing Ngo of wrong doing are not our best sources and we are using them to accuse Ngo of having foreknowledge of a crime and failing to act. Springee (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Uttar Pradesh[edit]

Hi, I'm Sumit banaphar. I have been trying to make changes in Udal of Mahoba by participate on the talk page , so i want to ask did this book consider reliable source for making changes.

Book:- Uttar Pradesh Volume 7 of Chib, Sukhdev Singh Volume 7 of This beautiful India, Sukhdev Singh Chib

Author:- Sukhdev Singh Chib

Publisher:- Light & Life Publishers page no.137 [74]

The article Udal of Mahoba currently includes the text

They were of mixed Ahir and Rajput descent and belonged to the Banaphar clan.

And I want to change it to

"They were of Rajput descent and belonged to the Banaphar clan of Rajputs"

so i want ask that, is this source is reliable for making the changes.

Here [75] is a more accessible version. I'd say no, but it's possible it could be used to insert something like "Some sources do not mention mixed Ahir and Rajput descent." Maybe. The University of Chicago Press source in the article is, from the WP-POV, a good one, and there is no WP-good reason to exclude what it says, so my advice is to give up on that particular point, you've been WP:Beating a dead horse long enough. However, this is a discussion for Talk:Udal of Mahoba. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång How did the debate end when everyone asked me to provide a better source for what I have right now and I was away from this problem for some time because I had some important work.Sumit banaphar (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what debate you mean. Perhaps you can find it through your edithistory. [76] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I took a look at the publisher and the author. The publisher Light & Life appears to be a religious service related to the Greek Orthodox Church, unclear what their editorial screening is like but that's not an academic publication. The author Sukhdev Singh Chib seems to be a professor of geography at the University of Jammu which might make it reliable for geography being a subject matter expert but not for history or mythology. The book in any case appears to be primarily a geography book and is likely inaccurate for this particular piece of information. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan News[edit]

Is Taiwan News reliable, or reliable enough to support the following claim on Antony Blinken?

He has expressed support for stronger ties with Taiwan.

This article would support that claim if it were an RS. The site claims that the paper has been around since 1949, but Taiwan News claims that there were some recent editorial controversies associated with pieces written by Keoni Everington, the author of the linked piece. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes they are. On the specific point here they aren’t the only ones saying that, you can upgrade the source to the WSJ [77] if you want to remove any possible BLP concern. The critique of the Taiwan News piece in New Bloom also uses misinformation instead of disinformation which is important for our purposes here, occasional misinformation is OK while no amount of disinformation is to be tolerated. If anyone has a source which says they published disinformation that would change the discussion entirely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • New Bloom Magazine was not the only one to refute the Everington disinformation piece from early February. See The Tyee here. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
You are goig to need more than a repeat of the same accusation by two explicitly partisan sources if your goal is to deprecate the whole outlet. Flickotown (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
You are going to need more than your own word to describe The Tyee as explicitly partisan, or expect a lengthy block. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not my own words, that accusation is just your wild imagination running riot. It's an explicitly partisan outlet, it's right there on their "About Us" page (specifically, the subsections "These are The Tyee’s principles." and "A bit more background on The Tyee.") Don't know what your rambling about a block has to do with anything Flickotown (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Vague commitments to environmentalism (under the These are The Tyee’s principles) and initial funding by a labor-friendly financial institution may constitute an ideological leaning, but not a partisan one (as opposed to something such as the Daily Mirror which is widely regarded as pro-UK Labour Party). Again, you will need a WP:RS that claims something such as The Tyee has a pro-NDP slant, not your own assessment. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Dude, threatening someone with a block over their opinion is totally not ok. (t · c) buidhe 01:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The Tyee is explicitly ideological. The part about "not hedge fund owners" makes that clear enough.[78] Adoring nanny (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Adoring nanny: Agreed. The Tyee also doesnt support the claim of disinformation, they use misinformation just like New Bloom. The unsupported juxtaposition of “disinformation” with the author's name would appear to violate our WP:BLP policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The outlet itself reliable though probably not reliable enough for a BLP. Flickotown (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on mass removals of deprecated sources[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources#Proposed_clarification_of_deprecated_sources_guidelines. I've flagged this notice there too - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for linking it here. I don't think it's a fair summary of the proposed change though. I am for removing deprecated sources from articles. I believe that for some sources mass removal of links does more harm than good (for example it makes it harder to find a good source instead) and the editors should be encouraged to replace sources with reliable ones. @David Gerard: do you mind if I change the section name to Discussion on mass removals of deprecated sources?
Would be happy to hear community feedback on this and read previous discussions. Alaexis¿question? 20:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I guess it can be a little disconcerting to have a ref removed all of a sudden, it probably won't matter that much if there are additional refs at the given point. But if there are not, the very least should be a cn placement so that an alternative sourcing, if it exists, can be found. It could be that the material itself needs to go and no result from a cn will likely lead to that eventually.Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Crusades [4 Volumes]: An Encyclopedia - Alan V. Murray[edit]

Dr. Grampinator pointed me at this ( in a debate at Talk:Crusades#RFC_on_the_naming_of_articles_within_the_Crusade_topic. I have since been using it for articles around the Crusades topic. Murray ( is a specialist academic at the University of Leeds. The Editorial advisory board included Benjamin Z. Kedar, Jean Richard (historian) and Jonathan Riley-Smith. All the contributors were practicing academics. To me this looks a nailed on WP:RS. The issue is there is an editor who keeps tagging its usage at Crusader States as [non-tertiary source needed]. None of the times it has been used as a source is particularly contentious so the sole reason seems to be that it has Encylopedia in the title. Other tertiary sources are used in the article without objection. Now am I going mad on this, please advise on whether this is a relaible source, I can see no reason to object? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Riley-Smith especially is a Premier League level Crusade expert and has been for a generation or more. I'd say this easily reaches the level of RS. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Norfolkbigfish: and @Dweller: nobody has questioned that the encyclopedia is a reliable source. What I say that secondary sources are preferred to tertiary sources (WP:PSTS). I also say that if a sentence verified by the encyclopedia contradicts secondary sources (some of them also cited in the article), we cannot ignore this PoV issue. Borsoka (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
IMO who wrote the essay and what it says is more important than where it was published or in what genre (monograph, encyclopedia, journal etc). WP:PSTS says use common sense (common sense is policy above policy ie. no policy required). -- GreenC 17:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The answer to who wrote the essay is a number of reputable/leading academics all active in the field, many of which are also cited in the articles for their other work Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Is this a traditional encyclopedia with multiple authors/contributors and one or more editors or is this one person's comprehensive work which they chose to title as an encyclopedia? If the former then I think it would be a tertiary work, if the latter then it would be a secondary work. Springee (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
It is former, there are over a thousand articles, it would be a lifetimes work for some poor soul. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Some scholarly encyclopedias (such as Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos) are actually secondary sources since they cite primary sources (archives, etc.). An encyclopedia written by experts is actually the best source IMO, since reliable secondary sources may be giving a minority view but encyclopedias usually strive for a consensus version. (t · c) buidhe 01:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: I fully agree with your above remarks: well-edited encyclopedias strives for a consensus and I regularly refer to encyclopedias when editing articles. 'The Crusades [4 Volumes]: An Encyclopedia (edited by Alan V. Murray) is without doubt one of the best encyclopedias about the crusades and it is the best source if there is a debate about scholarly consensus. In this case, there is no debate about scholarly consensus. Secondary sources already cited in the article provide a consensual picture, so we do not need to ignore WP's preference for secondary sources and introduce new and new articles from the encyclopedia. In this specific case, further problem arise from the fact that the sentences allegedly verified by articles from the encyclopedia contradict secondary books written by the articles' authors. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I can't see any reason to prefer secondary sources to tertiary ones when they are of equal reliability. I don't see any wording in WP:PSTS that would encourage this use of cleanup tags or source replacement. Of course, if you confirm the info in another reliable source, it never hurts to have 2 citations for one fact. (t · c) buidhe 02:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." For the time being, references to tertiary sources are replacing references to secondary sources in the article, although there is no neutrality issue or debate about scholarly consensus. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
There may be "neutrality issue or debate about scholarly consensus" at present. But there's no way to know if content may be challenged in future. That's why it's best to cite the scholarly tertiary source for evidence that the interpretation is the majority view. (t · c) buidhe 12:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think our policy states that tertiary and primary sources should be used "to a lesser extent" than secondary sources? Why do you think that replacing references to secondary sources with references to tertiary sources is in line with our policy? Do we want to transform WP into a large collection of slightly (and sometimes incorrectly) paraphrased texts from encyclopedias? Please remember paraphrasing encyclopedia's articles is the easiest way to write a GA or a FA, because one does not need to read lengthy texts from books. I emphasize tertiary sources could and should be used in specific cases, but we cannot base our articles either on primary or on tertiary sources. Borsoka (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
IMO the wording of the policy either makes no sense, or the framers were thinking of low-quality tertiary sources like Encyclopedia Brittanica. As for the article, it also cites plenty of secondary sources so it's hard to understand the complaint. Dogmatic adherence to a particular interpretation of some policy (which doesn't seem to be widely shared) above common sense and the overarching goal of improving the encyclopedia is not recommended. (t · c) buidhe 18:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Common sense and our overarching goal of improving the encyclopedia suggest that editors should not base articles primarily on tertiary (or primary) sources. We are not here to clone existing encyclopedias (or to present the results of our research). @Diannaa: sorry for pinging you, but according to my experiences, you are an editor with a deep knowledge of copyright issues. I am asking you to comment on the use of encyclopedia articles from a copyright perspective. My concern is that high-quality encyclopedia articles contain a concise text which is based on the deep study of specific secondary sources and the careful consolidation of their core texts. An editor who bases a WP article exclusively on an encyclopedic article can change some words or modify their sequence, but cannot change the core of the cited article fundamentally. Similarly, an editor who explains a term in a WP article using exclusively an encyclopedic article cannot modify the essence of the original article. Consequently, such editors' work can hardly meet the minimal standards of originality. In contrast, when using multiple secondary sources and consolidating their texts, editors obviously create a new work. Thank you for your time and thoughts. Borsoka (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree that it's impossible to use an encyclopedia as a source without plagiarising it. That seems a bit of a stretch. On the other hand, in my opinion it's not a good idea to rely solely on one source (whether secondary or tertiary) when writing an article, particularly if the intention is to nominate for GA or FA at some point. My preference is to have at least 3 good source books, secondary sources only, to ensure a neutral POV and reassure myself that the material I am adding is as accurate as can be. — Diannaa (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I am less optimistic about plagiarism, but I agree that we can avoid it through the use of multiple sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
What about the following summary? (Sorry, as it is obvious, I am not a native speaker.) 1. WP recommends the use of secondary sources instead of tertiary sources. 2. Editors are required to verify facts primarily with references to secondary sources. Tertiary sources can particularly be used if high-quality secondary sources are unavailable or contradict each other. 3. Articles or article sections cannot be based exclusively on tertiary sources if high-quality secondary sources abound. 4. Whether an encyclopedia is a secondary or a tertiary source can be decided on a case by case basis. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The question was whether this work was a reputable work that could be used on the topics around crusades, crusading and the crusader States. If I might be so bold the consensus would appear to be yes. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Like some other editors above, I disagree with the idea that secondary sources should always be preferred over tertiary sources but this is not an appropriate venue for that discussion. Discussion about the relative weight of this specific source compared to other available, reliable sources should take place in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the question was raised about an issue that was never debated: the book is a reputable source, without doubt. I have never questioned its reputability. I also disagree with the idea that secondary sources should always be preferred over tertiary sources: neither our policy nor my above summary say this. Borsoka (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Opindia backdoor POV pushing[edit]

NASDAQ News[edit]

Does NASDAQ News run anything that isn't a reprint? I see crypto advocates linking NASDAQ News articles repeatedly, saying it's NASDAQ (the stock exchange) so it's reliable - but as far as I can tell, their news page is literally entirely reprints, with an unhealthy fondness for bottom-of-the-barrel crypto blogs. Do they do any reporting as a news source? Is there an "about" on what they think they're doing editorially? Is there some suitable statement to put in WP:RSP? - David Gerard (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The stuff under the "Trending Topics" labelled "Expert", appears to not be a reprint, such as this original analysis by NASDAQ Chief Economist Phil Mackintosh, but overall I agree that NASDAQ republishes loads of questionable reprints with no editoral oversight, and their reliability should not be considered to have been enhanced by being reposted by NASDAQ. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I have a similar impression. I went to check just in case they have changed, but I see that dozens of publications for the last few days are reprints from CoinDesk. And I don't see any statements about editorial practices in their "About" section. Does not instill confidence at all. Retimuko (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking through the original content published by NASDAQ on the page, would that be usable? It's a corporate blog, sort of, OTOH these are also arguably experts and aren't just writing to promote NASDAQ (if at all) but to inform ... but that's at a fairly quick glance - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

While original content might in some cases be usable as expert opinion, most of the time it's going to be transitory insights that are unlikely to be useful for an encyclopedia. As for the reprinted material (i.e., almost all of it), my understanding is that Nasdaq seeks to be comprehensive and does not ordinarily apply editorial scrutiny. I would think that all such materials would inherit the reliability of the source, and the preferred citation normally would be to the source. John M Baker (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
yeah, seems likely. Yes, the source material should be used by preference. (Similar issue with Yahoo News reprints - the original stuff is an ordinary WP:NEWSORG, but the reprints include all manner of rubbish.) has 118 usages in article space - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I mostly come across this content in the crypto articles, and in general it is always a reprint. I think it is unreliable. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


Hello, I'd like to know if these two sources could be considered reliable when making claims about Ahmose-Nefertari's ethnicity (or about the ethnicity of ancient Egyptians in general, the main topic of articles such as Ancient Egyptian race controversy and Black Egyptian hypothesis):

Thanks, Khruner (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

As the wikipedia article notes, Black Athena is considered fringe by mainstream Classicists and Egyptologists. Cheikh Anta Diop is a pan africanist. Neither work should be use as a source of facts about Ancient Egypt, but I could see them being used alongside secondary sources discussing tham as sources about the race controversy itself.Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

New Books Network[edit]

I notice there is no discussion about this source, so I thought that I would bring it up. The NBN describes itself as "a consortium of author-interview podcast channels dedicated to raising the level of public discourse by introducing scholars and other serious writers to a wide public via new media."[79] The websites host interviews of authors of "serious books" by academics, accompanied by a brief text review. For example In Praise of Blood, a book about war crimes is reviewed[80] by Jeff Bachman, who is not quite notable but did write one and edit one book, both published by Routledge, on genocide and human rights. Are the reviews a reliable source to cite with attribution in the reception section of books? (t · c) buidhe 12:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, it seems to have similar editorial oversight as book reviews in other mediums (such as H-Net), and the reviewers/hosts are subject matter experts so their opinions are likely to be WP:DUE. (t · c) buidhe 12:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Diverting position: The website host is not an expert on the subject of the book (genocide in Rwanda). His short introduction of the interview on the webpage is not a review but a very short summary of promotional materials. The dispute is not about whether the host is an expert on human rights or other subjects but whether he is a reliable source in this specific case. His information is not different from other non-experts already quoted and therefore doesn't add any useful information. Saflieni (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC) See discussion on Talk:In Praise of Blood
    • Actually, Bachman "is especially interested in the misuse of the law as a political tool through its selective application and enforcement".[81] That's exactly what the book is about, as well as Rwandan history. Therefore I consider his attributed opinion to be WP:DUE. (t · c) buidhe 14:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Why do you keep answering your own questions, Buidhe? And why do you quarrel about a book you haven't read? Bachman's interests have no relationship with the subject at hand. His brief introduction to the interview is not a book review. To suggest otherwise is misleading, to put it mildly, especially since you can't seem to let it go. Saflieni (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Advertiser (Adelaide)[edit]

Hello, this is my first time posting on this particular page. I was wondering whether or not this source was considered generally reliable. I did not find many discussions about it in the archives, none of which went in-depth about its reliability. From what research I have done it appears to be a tabloid affiliated with News Corp, whose New York Post is considered generally unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It also appears to have a conservative slant, but that of course doesn't make a source unreliable. There also appears to be some regional difference in the use of the word "tabloid" that I, as an American, may just not fully understand.

For context, I have raised my concerns about the source at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Fimmano and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stella Rigon. My arguments were generally more concerned with the significance of the coverage for the former, but I still wanted additional input on the use of this source generally. I appreciate the input! Jay eyem (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

IDK, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in surveys of trust in the press[82] (t · c) buidhe 16:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The Australian Murdoch tabloids print a lot of the same stories and have a fairly standard company editorial line, so it should be ranked as they are. I'm really not sure how reliable this group of papers would be for news content. As far as I know, they aren't given to straight-up fabrication like The Sun does in the UK. They run a lot of tabloid personal attacks on public figures who are out of favour with News Corp; I'm not sure that content is specifically lies as such, but I'm also not convinced it's encyclopedic. The opinion articles (Andrew Bolt, etc) contain a lot of trash I wouldn't want near Wikipedia - science denialism and so on.
So I'd treat the lot of them with attributed caution - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Tabloid format, not tabloid. Reliable for news content. Opinion content should be attributed. - Ryk72 talk 20:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
No, I'd say they're unequivocally tabloid by content too - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm reliably informed that the apropos Antipodean phrase is "yeah. nah.". It's just not tabloid in the same sense as the British tabloids, Daily Mail & Sun, the NY Post, or Germany's Bild.- Ryk72 talk 03:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Reliable for the football scores. News is very selective. When its beloved Liberal Party does something really bad and embarrassing, it will ignore that and have a banner headline sensationalising something minor the Labor Party did some time in the past fifty years as a disastrously negative event. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Broadly agree with HiLo48 and David Gerard. The opinion stuff is just nonsense and shouldn't be used for anything on Wikipedia. The news (on political matters at least) is highly selective and biased in favour of the conservative Liberal Party incumbent in South Australia, as is generally the case with all Murdoch papers in Australia. Generally, for the last couple of decades the general news content is only "generally reliable" and for anything controversial at all, especially politics, it should be attributed as "the Rupert Murdoch-owned The Advertiser newspaper". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Selectivity in coverage is not the same as unreliability of coverage. If it were, we would have to exclude a large range of sources. Are there any examples of the Advertiser having produced false or erroneous content, which was not later retracted? - Ryk72 talk 02:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am an Australian so am familiar with this. I don't see why this can't be treated in exactly the same way as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Australian, Australia's national Murdoch-owned newspaper. The Advertiser is a newspaper with a long history and is Adelaide's main newspaper. For news articles there are generally no concerns, opinion articles and contentious political issues need to be treated with caution (as they do in lots of papers) - I think putting it as "nonsense" is too harsh. Deus et lex (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I to am an Australian and I agree with Deus et lex. --Bduke (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The Australian is rated middle of the pack for trust, around 56% trust it[83] The trust of Advertiser is not rated so it can't be established to be of equal reliability. (t · c) buidhe 03:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Consumer trust, as measured in this survey, is not the same as reliability of sources in the Wikipedia sense. Notwithstanding this, The Australian is rated as the most trusted named Australian newspaper, comparing favourably with such bastions of reliability as BBC News 66% & The Guardian online 49%. The category of local & regional newspapers, which includes The Advertiser, actually scores higher at 63%. - Ryk72 talk 03:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
It's as reliable in the same way The Australian is reliable. I'm Australian. It's not tabloid in the same sense as the UK tabloids, as it's tabloid-format. And it's the only statewide and city wide print publication for this capital city. So removing it from RS's would seriously restrict citable wiki content relating to Sth Aust. CatCafe (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
You have perfectly emphasised the problem I outlined BELOW, before you moved this comment away from this response. Thank you. It's from Murdoch, who controls 70% of Australia's media, and 100% of SA's print media. We still have every right to say it's unreliable. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
not related to reliability of source
HiLo48, I was not discussing this issue with you. You're looking argumentative, and no one said you didn't have the right to say it's unreliable. As such, goodbye. CatCafe (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
What's with the antagonism? You are making public comments on a public page of a site on the WORLD WIDE Web. Pretty sure anyone can respond. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
And HiLo48, you're suggesting/accusing others of saying you don't have the right to say it's unreliable. No one said that and thus you're being antagonistic. Take it up with someone who actually said that about you - i.e. no-one. Goodbye. CatCafe (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I did not say that, but YOU said "I don't converse with HiLo48" and "I was not discussing this issue with you. You're looking argumentative..." I can't reember interactions we've apparently had in the past. I didn't have any negative thoughts about you, so I have no idea what your issue is. I shall leave it to others to judge, and recommended that you talk about the topic rather than me. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
HiLo48, you started on me with "We still have every right to say it's unreliable" as if I (or someone else) had said you couldn't claim unreliability - you imagined that. You think every comment on this thread is made toward you - you're simply not that compelling. Thanks for proving my claim that you're argumentative, and please stick to the subject and stop making faux-victim, ridiculous claims. CatCafe (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
"We" referred to Wikipedia. You are the only person who has made this about me. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • As is the case in general with Murdoch's Australian publications, and as other Australian editors have pointed out, The Advertiser has a noted conservative slant and thus their politics and opinion content should be treated with that slant in mind.
Media Watch, a media-criticism program by the publicly-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation, critiqued The Advertiser in 2010 for its uncritical republication of PR fluff (transcript), and noted a 2009 analysis, run jointly by Crikey and students from the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, that examined the proportion of PR-driven content in about 2000 articles from Australian newspapers, including 181 pieces from the print edition of The Advertiser.
It found that about 34% of these articles were PR content "where no significant journalism work was done" – the highest percentage of any newspaper examined, above the overall Australian average (around 25%), and significantly above some other News Corp publications such as The Australian (19%), the Australian Financial Review (20%) and the Herald Sun (23%). For AfD purposes, this implies a need to carefully check articles in The Advertiser for independence before they can be used to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.
Media Watch has also run two other segments critical of the accuracy of The Advertiser (transcript 1, transcript 2), but they are relatively old, and in one case the newspaper ran a more accurate piece the next day (although the earlier article was not explicitly noted and corrected).
As is the case for many newspapers nowadays, articles and headlines can be sensationalist or gossipy, but The Advertiser isn't incredibly poor in this regard – when comparing its website to e.g. the Daily Mail Australian edition, it seems fairly restrained.
For articles unaffected by these issues (general news, sports etc.) I don't see any particular reason to avoid The Advertiser. – Teratix 05:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
It's worth noting that NewsCorp controls around 70% of Australia's mainstream media, meaning both that its consumers are unlikely to see conflicting perspectives on the world (this includes what editors choose to promote as important), and that it's hard to find sources telling us its outlets are poor sources. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I can find sourcing for NewsCorp having a reach of 70%, and controlling about 58% of newspapers,[84] but not for 70% of Australia's mainstream media, a field which would also include a strong state-owned media presence. Is there a source supporting the 70% figure? - Ryk72 talk 06:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to go with "reach", although my point stands. HiLo48 (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I went back through the sources, looking to see how that reach compares to other publishers, and it looks like I actually misread this source in Sydney Morning Herald.[85] A mistake for which I sincerely apologise. The 70% was for Nine, not NewsCorp. NewsCorp claims 14-16 million, which would be about 55-62% reach. State owned broadcaster ABC reaches 68% across its platforms. It's a very concentrated media market, but it's by no means a monopoly; and consumers don't appear to be only exposed to NewsCorp's perspective. - Ryk72 talk 09:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Many are, because thy choose to be. One only has to read what Liberal Party voters say about the ABC to know that. And it's worth noting that Nine Entertainment is owned by a company chaired by Peter Costello, former Federal Treasurer from the Liberal Party. This is NOT a balanced media market. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Reliable Australian tabloids are not UK tabloids. Nor are they US tabloids. While they're more focused towards entertainment and sport than the broadsheets and they have a predilection for SHOCKING HEADLINES they don't make stuff up. Certainly biased but that generally isn't considered relevant to reliability; with the possibly exception of the AFR all Australian newspapers are partisan. --RaiderAspect (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but they DO make stuff up. See Herald Sun#Greens and drugs for one example that went to the Australian Press Council. I have seen many more examples. And the AFR is almost as bad. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm... honestly not sure what to say to that. You believe that the Australian Financial Review fabricates stories? --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I cannot find a source for the claim "And the AFR is almost as bad". And I recall that all major papers in Australia have at one point in time or another have been reported to the Press Council and had to correct the record. CatCafe (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Reliable I'm from Adelaide, where The Advertiser is the local metropolitan daily newspaper; it's also the owner of Messenger Newspapers, 9 free suburban weekly newspapers together covering the Adelaide metropolitan area, which used to be printed, but are now digital-only due to the COVID-19 economic downturn. I have a long-standing interest in press clippings, which I've previously reported elsewhere. I gave up my subscription the The Advertiser a number of years ago, in part because of the biased content of its opinion pages - the platform it gives to not only Andrew Bolt, but also other conservative commentators such as Alexander Downer, Nicolle Flint, etc. The forerunner of The Advertiser commenced in the mid-19th Century and during that time was more progressive, but this changed after ownership passed to the Bonython family, who were prominent members of the conservative Adelaide Establishment. Rupert Murdoch acquired full control in 1987, and in 1997 the format of The Advertiser was changed from broadsheet to tabloid format. From 2013 most of its digital content went behind a paywall, which also includes access to its digital archives. News Corp.'s declining revenues have resulted in job losses. Overall, IMHO, quantity and some quality of news (and sport) content have declined to some extent, but are still relatively reliable. Due to News Corp.'s Adelaide media monopoly, the only alternative local news sources (apart from TV networks and their associated websites) are online - ABC News (Australia), the public broadcaster, and InDaily. I prefer to use these two websites as refs for article I edit on Wikipedia, not least because their articles are not paywalled; however, due to their more limited resources, they don't have the breadth of coverage that The Advertiser still retains. Bahudhara (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Nice, irrelevant history lesson, but breadth of coverage and having a monopoly say nothing about whether it's reliable. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Many of The Advertiser's articles are sourced straight from the Daily Mail.
I guess it's old, but on 4 Feb 2010, the headline was "Hole in Abbot's ozone layer plan". The article was about Abbot's greenhouse gas plan. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 13:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Headlines are not reliable... no matter what paper we are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Irish and Scottish editions of Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday covered by deprecation?[edit]

The latest discussion of reasons deprecated sources aren't deprecated is at Talk:Next Irish general election - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Everything owned by Daily Mail and General Trust and/or DMG Media is not to be trusted. This includes Daily Mail TV]].[86] Those who try to read the tea leaves and decide that there are areas where they don't lie are on a fool's errand. Again and again, as soon as they take a guess about areas wher TDM is reliable, TDM publishes fabrications in that area.
I would suggest an exception for Euromoney Institutional Investor publications as long as they are only 49% owned. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
What about the i? I think that it is still factually accurate even if it has gone down hill. As for the Irish and Scottish editions, yes, defiantly. They show the same shoddy practices as the DM and MoS. El komodos drago (talk to me) 12:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
What about This is Money? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
From the site: All about This Is Money Welcome to This is Money, the award-winning financial website and money section of the MailOnline. MailOnline is specifically covered by WP:DAILYMAIL. You keep asking this question, and the answer keeps being that they literally proclaim themselves part of the same thing - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
This might need more discussion. The explicit statement of the RfC that it's scope was limited to UK Daily Mail can not be easily dismissed. It may be a moot question as other secondary sources have been found for the disputed content. Spudlace (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
This discussion HAS been had, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, and no matter what loopholes partisans try to find, the result has been the same. This horse? It is well and truly dead. --Calton | Talk 06:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

WonderHowTo and related sites[edit]

WonderHowTo is a site that is often used for citations, alongside some of its subsidiaries like Gadget Hacks. For example, it's used as a source on Google Pixel - particularly the article An example of a Gadget Hacks source is on iPhone SE (2nd generation) - Should this be considered reliable for tech news? I searched and did not see it posted here before? Gadget Hacks claims to have an editorial team - - and so does WonderHowTo - - with these being essentially the same teams (lots of crossover). I personally haven't seen evidence that these sources are unreliable. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Janta Ka Reporter[edit]

How reliable is this site? I have seen it in citations of various Indian articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DEFCON5 (talkcontribs) 5:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

On a brief search of the cite, it looks reliable enough for a stub article. Please be weary that this is not a full assessment of the full site. The content looks like it is neutral and informative that stays on topic and is a third-party source. Heart (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Marginally reliable at best. Janata ka Reporter accepts contributor submission, which do undergo editorial oversight but I'd advise against using it. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Red flag traffic laws[edit]

In 2019, on the article Red flag traffic laws, I tagged the section "Red flag laws in the United States" as a hoax because it made claims which seem quite doubtful in my opinion. The tag was later removed by another editor who claimed that the citations (citing books) did indeed verify the contents of the section. I am not sure if this is the case, so I would like to request here that a neutral party verify the claims, if possible. The citations are here and here. Please be warned that these are Google links.

The claim has existed since the article's creation: Diff

Thank you.

DesertPipeline (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The sources in question may be reliable for some purposes, but context matters and I see no evidence that they were written or edited by anyone familiar with verifying statutory law. For the second source you mention, Munger, which makes the more extended and more controversial claims, it appears that Munger’s own source, Karolevitz, does not support the claims made, at least from what I can tell from the Google snippet view, [87]. The first source, Vesilind & DiStefano, does describe a real statute, but it has accuracy issues and misses the important point that the law in question applied only to steam-propelled vehicles, see [88]. So I would not accept either of these sources. John M Baker (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello John, thanks for your response. Just to make sure we're on the same page, this means that it would probably be best if the section were removed? DesertPipeline (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Addendum: Or at least to remove everything except "In the United States, the state of Vermont passed a similar Red Flag Law in 1894, only to repeal it two years later."? DesertPipeline (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC) I have struck this addendum because upon re-reading your comment I only just noticed you say not to accept either source. DesertPipeline (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I would revise the Vermont law discussion to use the authoritative language of the statute itself, linked above. You could still use Vesilind & DiStefano for the noncontroversial claim that the statute was repealed two years later. Since you don't have a reliable source for the Pennsylvania proposed legislation, I think that discussion needs to go. John M Baker (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for being stupid, but I don't understand what you mean by "use the authoritative language of the statute itself". Also, due to the fact that I wish to avoid the large-scale surveillance of many computer technology sector-related companies, I'm unable to view the link that you provided. Can you advise on what I should be writing in the article? Thank you, and sorry for the inconvenience. DesertPipeline (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
DesertPipeline, I mean that you can just summarize what the statute said. It was pretty short. For a non-Google link, look here. John M Baker (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


Despite its popularity among professionals, I've noticed that Medscape is, as of now, still not listed on WP:RSPSOURCES. Its historical precedent, eMedicine, was only briefly mentioned in WP:MEDRS as usually acceptable source for uncontroversial information. Also, a previous discussion was started here 11 years ago, but didn't gain enough traction to build consensus. To the best of my knowledge, drugs and diseases articles on Medscape are peer-reviewed and compatible with WP:MEDPRI. Even though an RfC would be more appropriate to establish this sort of recognition for the source, I said I'd first collect some thoughts on its reliability. Assem Khidhr (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment, pinging Doc James for their input. Assem Khidhr (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Doc seems to be busy elsewhere ATM. Why should Medscape be considered MEDRS when it not a type of source we look for for WP:MEDRS? I'd have thought it would be okay for uncontroversial information but for anything at all weighty (e.g. harms and benefits of a drug) we'd need the usual high-quality WP:MEDRS. The current mention in MEDRS looks about right to me. Alexbrn (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Daily Sabah[edit]

What is the reliability of Daily Sabah ( HTTPS links HTTP links)?

  • 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?

Survey (Daily Sabah)[edit]

  • Option 4. A 2020 PhD thesis states: "The new propaganda outlet’s purpose was to consolidate Erdoğan’s power, cultivate anti-Western sentiment in the population, and legitimize government’s policies." The same thesis compares Daily Sabah with RT, stating that they are both propaganda but Daily Sabah is more blatant about it. According to the thesis, Daily Sabah has made many false or unproven statements about the 2016 coup attempt and the post-coup purges, including the claim that Fethullah Gülen "commanded the death of hundreds of people through a reactionary coup" (in fact, there is basically no evidence that Gülen was behind the coup), and that US taxpayer money is "funding Gülenist terror-cult FETÖ".
  • According to Poynter Institute "Turkey’s English-language media outlets, such as public broadcaster TRT World TV and the pro-government newspaper Daily Sabah pursue the same objective — improving Turkey’s image abroad— said Koray Kaplıca, also an editor at DogrulukPayi. But in the name of “national interest” these outlets can turn into pure propaganda tools for the ruling party." According to a 2014 article in Foreign Policy, Daily Sabah is "Essentially composed of thinly veiled government press releases".[89]
  • Daily Sabah refers to recognition of the Armenian genocide as a "defamation campaign"[90][91]
  • We deprecated RT and if Daily Sabah is like RT or worse, it should be deprecated as well. (t · c) buidhe 12:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3+ I'm not sure it's absolutely unusable, but for just about anything touching Turkey's politics, its foreign relations, its wars, and its president Daily Sabah is worse than useless. Same for TRT. Sometimes the "criterion of embarrassment" can be applied for non-controversial statements. GPinkerton (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3+ Yep pretty much agree with GPinkerton. Option 3 and always attribute.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3+ Seems to be generally unreliable, per GPinkerton. FlalfTalk 04:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 to 4. Generally unreliable, only reliable for what Erdogan&friends have to say, really. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Daily Sabah)[edit]

  • I was prompted to ask this question because of this dubious edit on the Armenian Genocide article, in which, among other issues, another user cited the AK Party website for the assertion that the party is responsible for "ending the century-long censorship on Armenian genocide in Turkey"[92] There are 1,200 citations to this government propaganda outlet currently cited in mainspace articles. (t · c) buidhe 12:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The source has come up in prior discussions, for example Spudlace stated that "Daily Sabah or Kathimerini are not the best sources for the Greek-Turkish relations page." and in Archive 266 where both Slatersteven and Icewhiz express doubts about its reliability. (t · c) buidhe 12:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
buidhe I am also of Option 3, which has been summarized well by GPinkerton. I don't know if the claim is dubious - the government's local supporters, mostly Muslim, seem to reward them more for religious actions, like praying in hagia Sophia, that support their narrative of being free in their homeland. But, I don't think Daily Sabah is an independent WP:RS for this claim. With Daily Sabah and Kathimerini, it's common sense to not attempt balancing biased sources against each other in contradistinction without a secondary source, and accordingly, I would not give this claim from a political party more weight than independent sources have. because politically biased primary sources like political parties are selective in their claims and analysis, it should be on the list with all the other similar sources. Spudlace (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There are few instances where Anadolu Agency is not a better substitute. It's less lurid and more official. I used it for Hagia_Sophia#International_reaction this year for the thinly-spaced positive reaction to developments there. (Jubilation in Mauretania etc.) GPinkerton (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • In a discussion about Turkish greenhouse gas emissions, Chidgk1 and I agreed that DS could be used for attributed statements. For these articles, DS tended to support their statements by references to international media or official reports, providing some assurance regarding their claims. Jlevi (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jlevi: Looking over the website, the first article I clicked attributed Macron to making "remarks characterizing Islam as a problematic religion that needs to be contained," which didn't seem to be backed up by any reliable sources and other reliable sources such as Al Jazeera say the complete opposite. FlalfTalk 04:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't say any more than that DS would reliably report the AKP government's views or selected Turkstat statistics. So pretty similar to "Anadolu Agency" in my opinion.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good! Just figured I'd bring up our use case for discussion, and I defer entirely to Chidgk1 based on their higher level of familiarity. Jlevi (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Chidgk1: So you propose similar to An Phoblacht it should only be used in cases like WP:ABOUTSELF? FlalfTalk 03:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't have very strong views but I see Anadolu Agency is listed in Perennial sources as both yellow and red. So perhaps something like that. But on the other hand readers tend just to see the first color so that is not user-friendly. Sorry to be wishy-washy - maybe red/yellow stripes?! Chidgk1 (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity[edit]

Is the following reliably sourced information?

Hassanpour, Amir (2005), Shelton, Dinah L. (ed.), "Kurds", Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, Macmillan Reference USA, pp. 632–637, The majority live in Kurdistan, a borderless homeland whose territory is divided among the neighboring countries of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. … The dismantling of the Ottoman empire in World War I led to the division of its Kurdish region and the incorporation of that territory into the newly created states of Iraq (under British occupation and mandate, 1918–1932), Syria (under French occupation and mandate, 1918–1946), and Turkey (Republic of Turkey since 1923). The formation of these modern nation-states entailed the forced assimilation of the Kurds into the official or dominant national languages and cultures: Turkish (Turkey), Persian (Iran), and Arabic (Syria, and, in a more limited scope, Iraq).

Or is it more accurate to dismiss the entire encyclopaedia entry in the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity by claiming "Amir Hassanpour is a kurdish writer. So its a kurdish pov" as has been alleged. The Encyclopedia is published by Macmillan Reference. All other reliable sources state identical information. For example the Oxford English Dictionary:

Kurdistan, n. (Kurdish Kurdistan, lit. 'land of the Kurds'), the name of any of various (current or historical) regions inhabited by Kurdish people, now chiefly located in parts of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. The place name is attested in English contexts from at least the 16th cent. (initially as Curdistan).

GPinkerton (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Reliable Without commenting on any specific content dispute in any specific article, I believe the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity is a WP:RS. It is published by a mainstream publisher meaning it has a gatekeeping process and a physical presence by which it can be held legally liable for its publications, the author and editor are both acknowledged experts in their field, and the volume has been reviewed in a scholarly journal [93] without serious issues about its veracity being raised. Chetsford (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment The source is reliable, but what context was it used in? The only thing I see here that would require attribution to the author is the last sentence, where Iraq is widely considered by reliable sources to have been the most extreme case of persecution of the Kurds, I am not seeing the logic for an internationally recognized genocide being described as a "more limited scope". It may even be a fringe claim, or possibly just because the source was quoted out of context. Spudlace (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      That sentence is talking about forced assimilation; the Anfal genocide was a case of mass murder, which is a bit different. (t · c) buidhe 06:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      Buidhe, the forced assimilation isn't the bit being disputed at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. GPinkerton (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      Spudlace, It's just the idea that Kurdistan is split between four countries that's at issue. There seems to be an idea that Syrian Kurdistan does not exist or did not exist at the time of partition. GPinkerton (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      • We don't throw out biased sources, and certainly not on the basis of the author's ethnicity. The source is reliable for facts, and for other subjective opinions that can't be stated in Wikivoicem, it is a scholar's opinion and can be used with attribution. Spudlace (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable for the reasons stated above. But, not all books published by Macmillian (if the authors are not experts) would be RS for mass atrocities IMO, I try to use peer-reviewed sources wherever possible. (t · c) buidhe 23:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable - As noted above, the author was a notable, prominent, subject matter expert. Adding to the review linked by Chetsford, here are two more – 2 and 3 – all of which indicate that the source is a solid reference work. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[edit]

Is (a digital news website) reliable for a historical article such as Bengal Sultanate? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Fwiw, here's one older discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#Scroll,_OpIndia,_The_Wire,_The_Quint,_The_Print,_DailyO,_postcardnews,_rightlog_etc.. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely. You should be able to find much better sources on such a topic. (t · c) buidhe 06:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Preference should be given to scholarly sources over news publications which are generally less reliable on history and can reproduce popular misconceptions. That said, from what I have seen has much better standards compared to most other Indian news outlets when it comes to fact-checking. They also occasionally bring in subject matter experts which should be usable as well. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
This only applies to their original reporting, by the way. Since they also have sponsored content and a lot of syndicated material which are properly disclosed and hence can and should be avoided in case of the former and its reliability determined on the basis of the original source in case of the latter. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Dot, what qualifies as internet culture, and whether it's only reliable for that.[edit]

There has been disagreement over whether and how to use this source on Andy Ngo, as well as, to a lesser extent, this and this. The basic dispute has been over whether those fall under "internet culture", what internet culture means in an era where everything is online, and so on; but I wanted to ask a more general question of whether the WP:RS/P statement that The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture is meant to be exclusive or whether it merely means they are particularly reliable for internet culture but still reliable in general and, if the latter is the case, whether the RSP entry should be edited to indicate that they are generally reliable. --Aquillion (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • What defines internet culture is a good question. Perhaps we need to ping some of the editors who were involved in the previous discussions that resulted in the RSP summary. Perhaps we should also ask if this is a good source for making a controversial claim about a BLP. In this case DD is being used to make/support two claims in the article. One is that Ngo issued a misleading tweet because, according to the source, he didn't provide the full background regarding violence he witnessed.[[94]] So part of this claim is the source's opinion that Ngo witnessed yet decided not to report the background to the event. The second article effectively re-reports the claims of the Portland Mercury Blogtown report (PM is a local, alternative paper) [[95]]. The article strongly implies Ngo was aware of plans to attack a bar yet chose not to mention this. Both articles make controversial claims about a BLP subject. Do we consider the DD both reliable for such claims and to have sufficient weight to establish those claims as due? Note that much of this overlaps with an above Andy Ngo discussion. Springee (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Being "brutally assaulted" (Bellingcat wording) on the streets is not internet culture. Something like that needs very careful scrutiny for blp reasons and now low-tier sources. Although Ngo was not on the streets, the source is making a judgment who was the instigator in an alleged assault. --Pudeo (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • My interpretation of that RSP entry combined with some of the other entries on RSP and what I know about the Daily Dot is not so much that the Daily Dot is reliable when they report on internet culture but not when they report on other things, but that the Daily Dot only reports on internet culture, and so while their reporting is reliable it should be interpreted in the context of internet culture even if it doesn't seem like it at first. (It's much like other sources marked as "reliable for" a particular topic like Ars Technica or The AV Club in this way.)
So for example, take this article about Ajit Pai stepping down. This seems in principle like it could be written about any administration official, but the fact that the source is the Daily Dot means it couldn't have: they're writing about Pai because he's the guy in charge of the organization that regulates the internet, not just as a government official. Loki (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Fox News on Marjorie Taylor Greene[edit]

Does this Fox News article, which states "Her goals include outlawing abortion, protecting gun rights and fighting "big tech censorship" of conservative viewpoints.", support the statement "Greene supports criminalizing abortion." for the Marjorie Taylor Greene article? Fox News is yellow for politics, and Greene is a living person, but if Fox is simply repeating what Greene told them, it's probably accurate, right? feminist (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Circumcision Information and Resource Page[edit]

The "Circumcision Information and Resource Page" ( has a "reference library" ( which is linked 750 times from the English wikipedia.[96] It hosts third-party publications such as book extracts and journal articles on the topic of circumcision.

Some issues:

  • The third-pary material seems to be re-presented to conform to's look & feel, which raises the question of whether it's a correct copy. As a self-published site, is itself not WP:MEDRS, but are re-purposed articles reliable copies?
  • Probably more importantly, there is no sign the site has permission to reproduce the copyrighted materials of third-parties, which it carries. So for example this seems to be a clone of the paywalled article here, with the activist talking points usefully highlighted in the re-presentation.

Thought on what to do about this? An entry in WP:RSP and/or blacklisting? Whatever, it seems like some cleanup is needed. Alexbrn (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)