Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

New York Times article on paid reporting

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! ^[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: https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/hundreds-of-pink-slime-local-news-outlets-are-distributing-algorithmic-stories-conservative-talking-points.php (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)

• Here is a list with over 1,000 domains belonging to Metric Media: https://github.com/MassMove/AttackVectors/blob/master/LocalJournals/sites.csv (t · c) buidhe 06:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• New York Times has now published the complete list of the fraudulent "news" sites on Google Docs. I believe this these should be added as deprecated sources on WP:RSNP (do we need an RFC for that?), and a bot may be needed to create a list of wikipedia articles where they are currently used. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 20 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)
• @ThatMontrealIP and Abecedare: I happened to be looking into this and came across this discussion. I've published a table with the number of article-space links to URLs identified by NYT from the Google Doc linked above at User:Samwalton9 (WMF)/Metric Media links. I only list URLs that had a non-zero number of mainspace links. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The Canary

Would editors mind having a look at the designation of The Canary as 'generally unreliable' after the most recent discussion in April 2020? [1] 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.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    • 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.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    • 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[2] 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,[3] 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,[4] 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,[5] 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: https://www.counterhate.co.uk/our-people 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)

Re I think it would be hard to demonstrate that it's any more unreliable than, say, the Express: RSP says The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail. It is considered generally unreliable. I agree it is in the same category. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:13, 10 December 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,[6] and conspiracy theories about Portland Communications,[7] 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.[8][9][10][11]; as well as Grayzone it has contributors who write for outlets like MintPress and American Herald Tribune;[12] it published deceptive claims about Labour Party funding that promote antisemitic conspiracy theories;[13] it publishes conspiracy theories about Syrian chemical warfare;[14] one of its regular contributors (best known for his antisemitic tweets[15]) was recruited to write for a fake news site set up by the Russian government;[16] it published a Daily Mail style misleading story about story about a junior doctor's suicide;[17] it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS;[18] it published Russian government sponsored fake news about the Salisbury chemical attack;[19][20] before setting upt the Canary its editor promoted the Zeitgeist conspiracy theory movement[21] and worked with Davide Icke on his People's Voice;[22]and I think it published Pizzagate style fake news about Seth Rich's murder and later deleted the article without correction.[23][24] 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,[25] or Owen Jones[26] (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: https://www.stopfundingfakenews.com/the-briefing (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"[27] or the tweet where they point out the Canary editor's closeness to David Icke[28]. 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).[29] You didn't take on the fact that The Canary published the Trump machine's Seth Rich fantasies[30] or the issues about the smear on Goette-Luciak.[31] 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)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-canary-uk/ 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? :) https://www.thecanary.co/exclusive/2020/12/01/exclusive-labour-right-linked-to-campaign-to-shut-down-the-canary/ 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)

Actually this is a good example of why The Canary is not a generally reliable source. Article is billed as an "Exclusive" and opens with "The Canary can now reveal that" but the information they are "exclusively" "revealing" is the SFFN's own publicly available Companies House listing, plus a listing of the "associations" Imran Ahmed, plus a mention of the fact that Rachel Reeves is connected to it (a fact already in our Wikipedia article as it's "revealed" in previous, reliable reports), a nudge-nudge-wink-wink dressing up of the fact they know nothing about SFFN's funding to make it seem suspicious (now why on earth would donors to a campaign against fake news suppliers such as Westmonster and Tommy Robinson not want their names to be in public?). The "associations" they "reveal" are essentially that some of the people involved are also connected to Labour Party organisations, which is not really shocking. They note the fact that "CCDH also shares its address with “Blue Labour” campaign group Labour Together", not mentioning that 116 businesses on Companies House share this address.[32] (And in fact Labour Together is not a "'Blue Labour' campaign group"; it involves some people who are in Blue Labour, but others (e.g. David Lammy) who aren't.) In short, the mix of innuendo, guilt by association and sensationalism in this article show why most people consider it generally unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@BobFromBrockley: Hang on a second: you've just listed a set of true statements made in The Canary. Whether or not you like the tone of the article ("The Canary can now reveal that") or think that the facts are unsurprising (some of the people invovled are also connected to Labour Party organisations, which is not really shocking) has nothing to do with whether or not The Canary is reliable. If anything, what you've illustrated above is that The Canary's articles are generally factually sound, and that The Canary has a generally left-Labour point of view. WP:RS policy doesn't prohibit the use of left-Labour sources (just as it doesn't prohibit the use of right-Labour sources). It's concerned with accuracy, which appears to be fulfilled here. On political issues, we should, of course, keep in mind the political leanings of the sources and present a range of views. But generally unreliable means that a source publishes false or fabricated information, not that it tends to lean left or right. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: No, I think what I've shown is that even where it's content isn't actually untrue, it is misleading and sensationalist and inappropriate for an encyclopedia (although even here there was one factual error, about Labour Together). It is not quite right that generally unreliable means that a source publishes (only) false or fabricated information: we define GU as "Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content." I'm not arguing for deprecation, but simply that the clickbait model, lack of editorial oversight, Daily Mail style sensationalism, conspiracy theories, poor grasp of facts and frequent inacccuracies leaves it insufficently reliable for non-exceptional use. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:04, 4 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.[33] An alt-left website closely associated with the Corbyn campaign (an "outrider" according to Corbyn,[34] to the point that a Corbyn aide said that they were providing scripts for it.[35] Compared to InfoWars in terms of promoting conspiracy theories.[36] Vici Vidi (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Is InfoWars independently regulated and given a rating as reliable by two independent media fact checking sites? No thought not. A ridiculous comparison. G-13114 (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable - we like "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" here at wikipedia and having gone through this discussion and checked the Canary's About, I'm satisfied it's a reliable left-wing source Mujinga (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. While it's obviously okay for its own views (if this is ever WP:DUE), this is a rather silly partisan source and miles away from the kind of respectable mature ones Wikipedia wants to be using. Alexbrn (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Partisanship does not necessarily mean unreliability. A classification of "generally unreliable" requires an established pattern of publishing false information, which is not the case here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Thucydides411 and Mujinga and G-13114 and others. Talk of the political nature of the source is irrelevant. We are only concerned with a news sources reliability on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 02:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

What happens now? Burrobert (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Can't be closed as not an RfC. Wait till it gets archived then have the discussion you were trying to have on RSP talk. We could have an RfC on reliability to get a clearer answer but I'm not sure another discussion on a small independent news source is really worth anyone's while. ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, the idea is only to get it out of GU and into nocon instead, right?Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That was my intention in raising the issue. Can that be done based on the discussion here? I note that The Canary was classified as GU based on discussions which were not RfC’s. Also, as far as I can tell, anyone can update the Perennial Sources list based on their interpretation of past discussions. I didn’t want to do that without first seeing what others thought of previous discussions. Burrobert (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to think things have changed; rather, this discussion has confirmed the status quo. Bearing in mind that votes alone wouldn't determine a decision and that a couple of editors on both sides have given non-policy based reasons for their votes, we now have had three discussions in which a total of 21 editors have argued for generally unreliable (or 23 including Hemiauchia and JungerMan Chips Ahoy! who refuted reliability arguments without explicitly opting for general unreliability), 4 editors have argued for a use-with-caution approach, and 8 editors have argued for generally reliable (or 11 including JzG, Deb and ImTheIP who refuted unreliability arguments without explicitly opting for general reliability). And this doesn't include the local consensus at the Labour article noted above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like no con to me? Anyway we can go again on RSP talk as was suggested.Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Red flag traffic laws

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, [37]. 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 [38]. 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)

John M Baker, I feel uncomfortable visiting the link you have provided because I unfortunately suffer from paranoia regarding visiting websites I've never visited before. I know it's silly, but I can't seem to get over this fear. Perhaps you could contact me on IRC, or some other non-Wikimedia channel, and provide a copy of the text in the link(s) so I can attempt to write a summary? I apologise for the inconvenience. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

DesertPipeline, I will just give you the information here, so you won't need to worry about accepting an email from me (I don't use IRC). The text of the statute was as follows:

"The owner or person in charge of a carriage, vehicle or engine propelled by steam, except road rollers, shall not cause or permit the same to pass over, through, or upon any public street or highway, except upon railroad tracks, unless he sends, at least one-eighth of a mile in advance of the same, a person of mature age to notify and warn all persons traveling upon or using the street or highway with horses or other domestic animals; and at night such person shall, except in an incorporated village or city, carry a red light. A person violating the provisions of this act shall be fined not more than ten dollars for each offense."

The citation for this source is Vt. Stat. tit. 21, § 3526 (1894) (citing 1894 Vt. Acts & Resolves ch. 85). I don't have a good citation for the repeal of this statute, but it is not to be found in the next compilation of the Vermont Statutes, in 1906, and I have no reason to doubt that it was repealed in 1896 as Vesilind & DiStefano indicates. John M Baker (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I was concerned about it being posted verbatim here due to the copyright violation policy, which is why I suggested it being sent to me elsewhere. Presumably that isn't a problem on a page like this? DesertPipeline (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

DesertPipeline, It could be in other circumstances, but official texts such as statues aren't protected by copyright in the US. MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Not a comment on the validity of these specific sources(so possibly irrelevant), but there do currently exist laws requiring red/orange fluorescent flags to be displayed behind vehicles carrying oversize loads: Per CVC Section 24604, whenever the load upon any vehicle extends, or whenever any integral part of any vehicle projects, to the rear four feet or more beyond the rear of the vehicle, as measured from the taillamps, there shall be displayed at the extreme end of the load or projecting part of the vehicle: a single solid red or fluorescent orange flag or cloth not less than 18 inches square if the projecting load is two feet wide or less. Two warning flags or cloths are required if the projecting load is wider than two feet. Flags or cloths shall be located to indicate maximum width of loads that extend beyond the sides or rear of the vehicle (emphasis mine). jp×g 19:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

With the article in question, the issue is that part of it suggests that in Vermont, in the United States, a law was passed, then repealed two years later, which required vehicles (unspecified type) to be disassembled on encountering livestock or cattle, then hidden from sight until the livestock/cattle was pacified. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

My previous comment was incorrect. It was in Pennsylvania, not Vermont. My apologies. DesertPipeline (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It also never took effect, according to the article. DesertPipeline (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

User-generated content website, which explicitly asks for user contributions

"Iran Chamber Society" (http://www.iranchamber.com/) is a user-generated content blog-style site with a number of pages relating to Iranian culture and history managed by anonymous individual(s) calling themselves the Iran Chamber Society. Many of the pages within are unattributed like this or this (this particular page is frequently used on Wikipedia, and lacks any attribution, references, etc.). Those pages that actually have attribution simply include a name and appear to been copy-pasted from existing works such as this one which copies from a book called The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East by Charles Horne. However, I've only seen the unattributed, unreferenced pages like this one get used on Wikipedia articles like this.

The "About Us" page (http://www.iranchamber.com/about_us/about_us.php) is very revealing, as they specifically ask for user contributions.

Since our resources are limited we need your support, feedback and advice not only to maintain the content of this site on the net but also to help it grow. All suggestions and corrections are deeply appreciated and will go under the thoughtful consideration. Our achievement up to now is relied on the generosity and commitment of our contributors. Herewith, Iran Chamber Society sincerely invites all Iranian and non-Iranian scholars and researchers to become contributing members and publish their articles and research papers on this platform and share them with the rest of the world.

From looking through most of the website, the articles appear to be either non-attributed user contribution, copy-pasted from someone else's published work, or in several cases an attributed user contribution.

For reference, the user-generated content section of WP:RS states: "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, video and image hosting services, most wikis, and other collaboratively created websites."

Thank you. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Saucysalsa30, Has anyone claimed the source is RS? If not you can just axe it, without a discussion. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe Not really, only 1 user claiming that it's not my place to decide if it's RS or not, hence why I'm here. Thanks for your response. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

By itself, "publishes user-submitted content" isn't terribly informative. What's really important is what happens with the submitted content i.e., what are their editorial practices? Peer-reviewed journals, for example, publish content submitted by "users" but their high quality editorial and review practices (generally) make them reliable. If this particular source does little or no review and editing of submitted content then of course that is a huge red flag. ElKevbo (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo Thanks for your input. There isn't evidence of an editorial review process, nor is this a peer-reviewed journal or periodic. They overstate themselves in their "About Us" page, as the majority of pages are unattributed and likely self-written, which I would assume the individual(s) who manage the site wrote themselves.

As far as "attributed" pages go, each one I've looked at are copy-pasted from an existing published work, meaning it wasn't submitted to the website. For example, the Charles Horne book in my opening comment. That book was published in 1917, and Horne died in 1942. Evidently he couldn't have submitted something to a website. Or for example the text for this Iran Chamber page is a direct copy-paste from a short post called "A Brief History of Iranian Jews" by Massoume Price, which I was able to find as early as Jan 2001 via Wayback Machine on another site. The copyright at the bottom of that page is 1996.

These are just 2 of several Iran Chamber pages with a name I looked into, but from what I'm seeing, 1) the Iran Chamber site manager(s) self-published many of their own pages, and 2) for pages with attribution, they copy-pasted existing published material from books, other websites, etc. to their website. Basically it looks like someone's hobby website on which they created most of the content themselves and copy-pasted the rest from existing writings, but misleadingly make the site sound like a bigger deal than it actually is in their "About Us" page. There is nothing to indicate it is like any actual academic resource or journal. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately the WP:ONUS to prove RS is on the party seeking to use the source, and there's zero evidence that this really is a RS (and plenty to the contrary). (t · c) buidhe 08:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Thanks for your feedback. I think that settles this matter then. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Iran Chamber Society seems to be widely used on Wikipedia articles related to Iran and its history; for example, I count at least six references to Iran Chamber on the main article Iran. It would appear that most of us here are, to be blunt, not familiar with this source, its editorial policies, or its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; I see only one previous RSN discussion of Iran Chamber, which did not elicit many comments or reach any sort of consensus. I have reached out to WikiProject Iran for any insights that its members might have, although I do not know how active the project is.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I see you've followed me here now. :) Just teasing, but the fact that this source is used so commonly on Wikipedia as you mention is cause for concern. Really all it takes is one user to use this as a source on a Wikipedia, and it can stick and propagate as a source from that point, as has evidently happened. It's one of a substantial number of occasions I've seen blogs used on Wikipedia as sources, but at least some of them admitted that they were a person's or group's personal blog. So far, Iran Chamber Society falls in the WP:UGC blog camp. The content is either written anonymously (presumably by the site's administrator(s)), or is copy-pasted from existing works (which includes other random websites). As previously discussed, there simply isn't evidence that this isn't a textbook example of non-RS. Just make a website, write lots of things yourself and copy-paste the rest from other websites and books, ask for "contributions" in an About page, and voila, you've created the same thing as Iran Chamber Society. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Self-contradicting or falsified source.

At Atintanians, this source [39] is used to source the following text:

Appian was the only ancient author that refers to them as Atintani (not Atintanes) with the ethnonym "Illyrian".[17] Šašel Kos considered that Appian specifically referred to the Atintani as an Illyrian tribe. She argued that it may be in agreement with the informations provided by Pseudo-Scylax, who included the Atintanes among the Illyrian peoples, barbarians, located to the north of Chaonia.

In this edit [40] [41], Sasel Kos clearly states that Appian is the only ancient author to refer to the Atintani as Illyrian people.". In this edit [42], it is stated that Sasel Kos considered that Appian specifically referred to the Atintani as an Illyrian tribe. She argued that it may be in agreement with the informations provided by Pseudo-Scylax, who included the Atintanes among the Illyrian peoples. Sasel Kos thus contradicts herself. If Appian is the only ancient author to refer to the Atintanians as Illyrian, it can't be that Pseudo-Scylax (another ancient author) included them among the Illyrians. Even worse, the translation of Pseudo-Scylax does not include the Atintanes among the Illyrians. It only mentions them once, and says nothing about Illyrians in that passage. This can clearly be seen on p. 62 of the translation here [43]. There are only two possibilities: Sasel Kos contradicts herself and contains glaring factual errors regarding Pseudo-Scylax, and is thus not reliable. Or else Sasel Kos falsified/mistranslated. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you look hard enough you can find errors and contradictions, even in peer-reviewed academic books. Overall, Marjeta Šašel Kos[44] is highly cited for her field and I would say the publisher (Narodni muzej Slovenije) is reliable. (t · c) buidhe 02:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The question is then what to do. It clearly contradicts itself and contains a factual error. Assuming it's not outright falsified, which could be the case. Khirurg (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing to do because there's no factual error. One of the two editors used a bad, half cropped, one-sentence quote. Both actual quotes:

• Appian specifically referred to the Atintani as an Illyrian people , which may be in accordance with the data in Pseudo - Scylax ( c . 22 – 27 ) . The author of the Periplus distinguished between the Illyrian peoples , barbarians , to the north of Chaonia , i . e . the Bulini , Nesti , Manii , Autariatae , Encheleis , Taulantii , Atintanes , and Amantini , while others , i . e . the Chaones , Thesproti, Cassopaei, and Molossi, whom he did not identify in terms of their ethnicity inhabited the regions to the south. All of these peoples, those to the north and to the south of Chaonia, were living in villages, while Greece began at the Greek polis of Ambracia ( c . 33 ).

• Appian is also the only one to mention the Illyrian Atintani ( sic , not Atintanes ) who , on Demetrius ' instigation , ceased to acknowledge the authority of the Romans and defected to the Illyrian kingdom . Interestingly , Appian never mentioned the Parthini ( settled in the Genusus ( Shkumbini ] valley ) , who had , according to Polybius , surrendered to the Romans together with the Atintanes. The Atintanes , who were the northeastern neighbours of the Chaones , inhabited , according to P . Cabanes , who collected all the relevant literary and epigraphic sources , the hilly region on the right bank of the Aous River ( Vjosa ) in the far hinterland to the southeast of Apollonia , in the vicinity , immediately to the east , of Byllis , between the plain of Myzeqeja and Tepelena. Now, if that is compared to how it was transferred to wikipedia: Appian is the only ancient author to refer to the Atintani as Illyrian people., it's obvious that the problem was related to the quote, not what Šašel Kos put forward.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

What's "wrong" is that the Periplus doesn't include the Atintani among the Illyrians. The only mention of the Atintani is on p. 62 [45]. All it says is Sharing a border with the Amantes in the interior are the Atintani above Orikos. That's it. No mention of "Illyrians". Clear-cut factual error. Khirurg (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The Periplous is WP:PRIMARY and its interpretation is the work of historians and archaeologists. A discussion about what the Periplous means to say is something out of the scope of wikipedia. Now, Appian specifically referred to the Atintani as an Illyrian people , which may be in accordance with the data in Pseudo - Scylax ( c . 22 – 27 ) . The author of the Periplus distinguished between the Illyrian peoples , barbarians , to the north of Chaonia , i . e . the Bulini , Nesti , Manii , Autariatae , Encheleis , Taulantii , Atintanes , and Amantini , while others , i . e . the Chaones , Thesproti, Cassopaei, and Molossi, whom he did not identify in terms of their ethnicity inhabited the regions to the south. can't even be read as "According to Šašel Kos the Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax says that the Atintani were Illyrians" in a straightforward way. What she says is that the fact that Appian calls them Illyrians is "in accordance with the data in the Periplous" which includes the Atintani with the "barbarians" north of the Chaones. To recap, sources should be read and quoted carefully, otherwise it's easy to make mistakes. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As Buidhe said, even reliable sources may contain contradictions and factual inaccuracies, which clearly is the case here. Khirurg (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no contradiction - Šašel Kos puts forward something very nuanced and certainly not "that the Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax says that the Atintani were Illyrians". The problem is that it was half quoted and WP:PRIMARY should be discussed by WP:RS. Every study of WP:PRIMARY is basically a master's degree in itself. We should be more careful in such discussions. I'm off to finish some work.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Šašel Kos is not contradicting herself, she firstly reports Appian's information, then she compares this information with the data from Pseudo-Scylax, because she considers that they may be in accordance with each other, since Pseudo-Scylax lists the specific tribe among other Illyrian peoples, distinguishing them from the Epirotes or Hellenes. Many WP:SECONDARY sources interpret Pseudo-Scylax (a WP:PRIMARY) as considering Illyrian the peoples listed to the north of Chaones (Pseudo-Scylax: "Epeiros. And after the Illyrioi are the Chaones"). Best regards. – Βατο (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed there are some obvious discrepancies such as the following translation: "Idonia" (Scylax)-> "Dodona" in order to present an Illyrian domination scenario in the area.Alexikoua (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, "I personally think this source is wrong because [reason]" is not a strong argument for WP:RS purposes - after all, by that argument you could discredit any source that says things you disagree with. If you think they made a genuine and serious error, you should look for other sources that have pointed that out, ideally ones that specifically name the source you want to discredit and unambiguously state it was wrong. Otherwise we run the risk of delving into our own original research in an effort to second-guess sources. --Aquillion (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • If a generally RS makes claims that can be shown to be wrong via consulting the primary sources then we should review the treatment of that specific article as reliable. We do not need a second RS to do that for us. Per WP:OR, original research is specifically allowed when evaluating specific sources to be used in a wiki article. It is prohibited if we are going to discuss the source's error in the article space. As an example, if a source says a company spent 24 months building a building but primary sources show the project took 36 months we can question the reliability of the secondary source. If that claim is incidental to the content of the secondary source we might decide the source can still be used absent that claim. If the 24 vs 36 months is critical to the RS then we should avoid the article. No where in policy is it said we can't question a source's reliability via primary sources. Springee (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Jacobin

Hello all. I'd be interested in getting Jacobin, [46] added to WP:RSP, just to make it easier when it comes up in the future.

I searched the archives and found an extensive discussion here. It got 22 replies. My attempt to tally the results is 9 generally reliable, 9 "attribute" (marginally reliable I guess), and 3 generally unreliable.

I notice that another left leaning news site, The Intercept, is green in the table, and I consider Jacobin similar to them. A google search for "Jacobin accuracy" turns up the usual media bias fact check type sites. I know you guys don't like those sites, but one rates them "high" accuracy, another rates them 32, which is a "good" rating.

What are your thoughts on adding Jacobin to WP:RSP, and what is your takeaway from the archived discussion on what classification it should receive? It might be more productive to focus on evaluating the consensus of the archived discussion rather than starting all over. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Meh, I would consider them more similar to CounterPunch which is rated yellow. As Neutrality said in the last discussion, I would not rely on this for statements of fact (even when attributed) because it's an opinion journal, and for factual statements there will nearly always be a better source. For statements of opinion, "Jane Doe wrote X in Jacobin" is fine, but agree with the due weight concerns. (t · c) buidhe 08:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes Jacobin is a good source. Generally reliable, attribute opinion. I haven’t had any problems using it as a source. Editors generally accept it in my experience. The quote I used in the previous discussion still holds: “bracingly rigorous and polemical in a really thought-provoking way”. Burrobert (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As for your other question, based on the discussion, I would say there's no consensus that it's generally reliable. (t · c) buidhe 11:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, yeah, I'd say the consensus of the old discussion was probably yellow, "marginally reliable", often opinion, should attribute. In the interest of keeping this discussion focused, I'd like to state a new question.

Whilst Jacobin is without a doubt a primarily a political commentary source, it's factually rigorous. Its pieces are fact-checked, well cited, and well researched. I notice @Buidhe: compares it to CounterPunch. Which, mind you, is also generally factually reliable though far more heavily opinion based. The thing is, unlike CounterPunch Jacobin also does long-form investigative journalism which puts it closer to The Intercept. @Novem Linguae: why is it "marginally reliable"? Whilst it is doubtlessly a partisan on-line magazine, it's factually accurate, the quality of writing is generally quite high, and professional. CNN and MSNBC in today's world are both typically highly biased and increasingly lean toward "Infotainment" style opinion instead of hard reporting. I fail to see why either should be considerably more reliable. Until there's actual evidence of mendacity on the part of the journal it should be regarded as a highly left-biased but factually accurate reliable source. KJS ml343x (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Re the comparisons here: Intercept trades on its reputation for long-term fact-based investigative journalism, and has an editorial team of seasoned investigators too, whereas the Jacobin is primarily an opinion outlet with editors who have no grounding in the world of reporting. I don't see any evidence of professionalism in this area or much investigative work, so I would place it much nearer than Counterpunch, although less prone to conspiracy theories than the latter. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Should we add Jacobin to WP:RSP with an assessment of yellow, "marginally reliable"? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The consensus in the previous discussion appears predominantly to be "partisan magazine, generally reliable for facts, attribute opinion, check for due weight", in other words similar to WP:SPLC. If you want its addition on RSP, it would require either a RfC or at least two significant discussions (see WP:RSPCRITERIA). There is at present one significant discussion, RSP shouldn't be used as an indiscriminate listing of sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this description and this summary of the discussion. In a lot of ways I think a comparison to Reason magazine might be even stronger than the comparison to the SPLC. And yes, I agree that it is premature to list Jacobin. Jlevi (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the yellow classification. While the source is somewhat similar to Reason in that it has a lot of commentary from a given POV, there is a difference in quality. Ad Fontes rates both reliability and bias. Reason is 38.3, 4.1 (reliability, bias)[[47]]. Jacobian is 32.3, -19.9 [[48]]. That puts Reason solidly in the second tier of sources while Jacobian is straddling the fence between second and third tier [[49]]. Springee (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The comparison to Reason is apt. I'd hesitate to use either as sources for factual claims about anything political. If it is used, statements should be attributed in text to the author and Jacobin. There was a Columbia School of Journalism article on Jacobin [50], but unfortunately it's entirely about the business aspect and the novelty of a successful socialist magazine, and has absolutely nothing to say on its accuracy or fact-checking, which is what we care about. Jacobin is very open about their POV, and while bias in sources isn't a deal-breaker, it does raise some red flags. I haven't seen any evidence they're regularly making stuff up, but this is a fairly young publication with an unproven track record and a clear political agenda. It should be used with caution, especially when it comes to political BLPs. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I would also compare with Reason, but I also argued that it was a mistake to rate Reason as generally reliable, for similar reasons. (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Left like Reason is right ie not really that partisan. I think Jacobin is fine. Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with the yellow classification and the sort of language Tayi Arajakate suggests, although it lacks the specialist knowledge and specialist investigative rigour of SPLC. I would say it is most reliable for niche areas that mainstream media might miss (e.g. trade union disputes, left history) and least reliable for controversial US and geopolitical political topics where it should be seen mainly as a source of less noteworthy opinions. As a UK reader, I would add that its UK/Europe articles tend to be ill-informed and fringey. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the past discussions & evidence presented, I'd say Jacobin is generally reliable, as long as it's used with attribution whenever possible. Many other outlets that contain alot of (often unlabeled) commentary & opinion, such as Slate, The Economist, Le Monde diplomatique, & Foreign Policy are considered generally reliable. And the vast majority of such news sources are biased in some noticeable way or another. I also wonder what exactly 'marginally reliable' would entail here, as sources labeled as such, like E! News, Business Insider, and Vice Media are still widely cited (& in some cases, even defended, such as for example Vice on the MGTOW article). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is quickly moving from a review/closing statement of the previous thread into another discussion in its own right. A few questions: 1) Should we open an actual discussion again on Jacobin? It seems some people may have additional thoughts. 2) Should we ask for a formal close of the previous discussion? Jlevi (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If we need two significant discussions, might as well turn this into the second one, no? I would like to know the consensus on Jacobin.Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

COURIER

Apologies for the allcaps, but that's how they style themselves. Are they reliable? One of their articles is being used to support the following statement on Chad Wolf. I don't subscribe to WaPo so can't verify whether it alone would be sufficient. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Agents also used unmarked vehicles to detain and remove protesters, and the protesters later produced several videos showing that the agents did not identify themselves as law enforcement, although DHS said the agents identified themselves.

References

I've never heard of it, but it puts itself forward as having the structure of what we accept as a WP:NEWSORG, FWIW. Is the claim likely true, not contradicted, etc? - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, Likely true, not contradicted (that I know of?). It's probably a moot point since this content isn't really about Chad Wolf anyway, and is better suited for George Floyd protests. I may just remove it … I was more interested in figuring out what COURIER was in general. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yuva TV

Is Yuva TV reliable for making claims in BLPs in Wikipedia's voice? Reliable for opinion if attributed and the opinion passes WP:WEIGHT? Or generally unreliable?

• Edit where a YouTube video from "Bharatiya Janata Party" purporting to be from Yuva TV was used as a source in a BLP: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Akbaruddin_Owaisi&diff=prev&oldid=992384359
• "The Bharatiya Janata Party has launched an internet television channel by the name of Yuva TV... BJP’s official website prominently links to Yuva TV."[51]
• Related BLPNB thread: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Akbaruddin Owaisi

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I believe you are referring to this link [52]. Yuva TV seems to be an internet/youtube channel by BJP's media wing. Is Yuva TV reliable for making claims in BLPs in Wikipedia's voice In my opinion this is not a neutral third party source. I would definitely not use it for making claims in Wikipedia voice. Reliable for opinion if attributed and the opinion passes WP:WEIGHT? Perhaps, but in this case it should be mentioned that "Yuva TV which is affiliated to BJP, mentioned that....". One possible case in which it might be used is when another party alleges something by BJP and we need to cite BJP's response. However, if a better source is available please use it. Or generally unreliable? I am not sure what is the quality of their reporting. This seems to be an internet only "channel" and most likely they post their videos on the BJP's official youtube channel. Personally I will not use this for any factual claims.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

For this particular case (2013 alleged hate speech by Akbaruddin Owaisi), there are better news articles available such as [53], [54]. The speech was indeed termed "anti-Hindu" and "anti-National" by some political parties [55], but this is the opinion of the parties themselves and should be cited as such.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Generally unreliable sounds about right. This is not a WP:NEWSORG and the only thing that it would be reliable for is its own opinions. If one can not find a reliable secondary source which quotes it then its opinions probably don't have due weightage. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Small, local news sources

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

---

With the Gypsy Taub article, I am trying to assert that small, local news sources like SFist and Berkeleyside are just as WP:RS as The New York Times. All three are ongoing businesses that can be sued for libel and such. All three are highly motivated to be reliable. In particular, I have a contentious editor who is owning the GT article who is saying that Berkeleyside is a blog because it won an award as a blog and so we cannot refer to it by the more general term "website" in the SFist article and has reverted me there. The contentious editor refuses to discuss the matter on the talk pages and is owning these articles. The relevant stories are https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/12/20/public-nudity-activist-from-berkeley-charged-with-attempted-abduction-stalking-of-teenage-boy and https://sfist.com/2020/06/19/noted-bay-area-activist-gypsy-taub-in-jail-for-six-months-on/ The sfist.com story was in the GT article for a long time but now the contentious editor has removed it and is reverting my attempts to restore it, threatening me with WP:3RR and such. We are having a related discussion over at WT:BLP. Please help.--Sa57arc (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This is probably better addressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. In general I think that we should use small, local news sources for small, local information. They are most likely going to be highly reliable when it comes to local weirdos/notables but much less so when it comes to say a political scandal half the world away. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe that SFist and Berkeleyside are reliable sources for local San Francisco Bay Area news. I used Berkeleyside as a reference in a biography recently. However, no reliable source can justify attempts to defame Taub in violation of BLP policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Again this sounds like an issue for the BLP noticeboard not the reliable sources noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The Taub BLP is being discussed at many places already, including WP:ANI. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:34, 7 Deceme ber 2020 (UTC)

The contentious editor has created quite a distraction. Let us stick to the topic at hand. I find that we have consensus that the two sources at issue are WP:RS. Thank you very much.--Sa57arc (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sa57arc, if the behavior of any editor involved with the Taub BLP is "contentious", it is your behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Several sentence opinion blog post on The Telegraph

A several sentence opinion blog post that adds no value except a writer calling for a deportation. It's not a published news article on The Telegraph, but the writer's personal opinion blog blurb. For example, it is being used as a source on Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran for this sentence: "The most notable of such events was the Iranian Embassy siege in London, in which six armed Khuzestani Arab insurgents took the Iranian Embassy's staff as hostages,". It stands in stark juxtaposition to the other source cited, a published book on the embassy siege and British SAS operation.

Should an angry-sounding short blog post that reads like certain political Twitter tweets be treated as a reliable source? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Broadly agree that this is not an ideal source but this should not be treated as akin a self-published opinion: it is the newspaper's own blog platform and the piece is by their Defence editor so it should be treated as broadly reliable, as well as perhaps of evidence of something being notable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Thanks for the feedback. Could you please clarify how a very brief Twitter-style blurb that says nothing more than "My plan is to deport X", written in the first-person and second-person is not akin to a self-published opinion? There isn't editorial oversight on that as there is on the published articles. I think what you're getting at though is that it's one step better than using Twitter, for example. A personal appeal is not very fitting here either, especially since Con Coughlin is well-known for being controversial and for pushing already disproven/wrong claims on various matters. Arguably one of his more embarrassing examples: [56] His articles are generally poor political opinion pieces rather than defense-related, e.g.[57] [58] and personal attacks [59]. Broader, The Daily Telegraph tends to fare poorly in academic studies on media reliability, even worse than The Daily Mail surprisingly.[60] [61]

At best we can see it's an example of WP:RSOPINION, and should be attributed properly. As important, WP:NEWSBLOG also warns about using such sources, in particular "use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Given the lack of fact-checking or editorial process on the blog, it directly falls under the purview on this warning. Furthermore, the Daily Telegraph did away with their blog altogether. While the reason was not publicized, it was likely due to problems posed by its writers using it as a freeform soapbox as in the case of the blog post in question. Overall, it's a questionable source to use when far better ones exist and are already cited on the Wikipedia article noted in the opening comment. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the OP about Con Coughlin being a polemical source and have actually been trying to cut down on references to Coughlin's work in Iraq-related articles in favor of academic sources, but I wouldn't expect RSN to reach a finding that Coughlin is generally unreliable. Determining how much weight to afford Coughlin's commentary is really a content dispute, which RSN cannot resolve.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I think I'd agree with a general use-with-caution approach. Saucysalsa30 are saying the claim it is being used for false (which might suggest a disputed tag and discussion on the talk page) or undue (Coughlin mentioning it would be an argument for its noteworthiness, but weak by itself), or that there are better sources (in which case adding a better source tag or simply replacing with a better source would be fine)? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Yes I agree with use-with-caution, and further, it's not necessary to be included in the first place considering a much better source is already cited, too. If the source was a published article on the news site, that would be a different story, but that's not the case here. Rather, this was ("was" because the Telegraph's blog for its writers no longer exists) a no-value short blog post that adds no news coverage or scholarly value. As previously stated, it's just one step above posting personal opinions on Twitter, if that. The second (undue) and third (better sources) things you stated are what are most applicable, particularly the latter. Considering a much better source already exists on the linked Wiki article on the same exact cited text, there really is no need for including this blog blurb. All it does really is degrade the scholarly value of the Wiki article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Our World in Data ( ourworldindata.org ): What do we do when a file is based upon an unreliable source?

• File:Microprocessor clock speed, OWID.svg
• https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/microprocessor-clock-speed

I am about to remove this as a reference from Clock rate because it is obviously wrong. Nobody has ever clocked a processor at 10Ghz or over, even with liquid nitrogen cooling.[62]

What do we do when a file is based upon an unreliable source? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed the image from the article, tagged the Commons file with {{Factual accuracy}} and reported the issue to Our World In Data. Hopefully Our World in Data will correct the chart, and we can re-insert the new version, since the article really ought to have a chart, but missing information is better than wrong information. Vahurzpu (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead Stories fact checker - reliable?

Hello everyone, could I get a weigh-in on the reliability of this source: https://leadstories.com

• They are a fact-checking website established in 2015, and they focus on trending content on social media.
• They are a signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network, and they have passed IFCN's external vetting in 2018, 2019, and 2020, with their most recent vetting being nearly flawless.
• Facebook uses them as a fact-checker, not sure if you can see this, but the Related Articles below the post shows me a link to a Lead Stories fact-check.
• They have named their staff and their stories credit the authors.
• They explain their methodology here.
• They have a corrections policy, and a list of corrected articles.
• They differentiate between false stories and satire.
• They are contactable for rating appeals from original publishers.

Hope to hear your input! starship.paint (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Appears to be reliable to me, did not see any red flags on the website. Note, there is a consensus that International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry) is reliable for accessing the reliability of fact checking organisations. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Discrediting Academic Source

I would like to get opinion from the Admins about Academic Source, printed in 1968 in Macedonia. The book deals with a specific matter the Drama Uprising (not general World War II view). Since it is specific event there are not many academic sources outhere (only 3-4 Academic supported publications). One user is discrediting this source as beeing irrelevant dated from Communistic Era. Macedonia (therefore Yugoslavia), did their huge reforms and changes in early 60es and this book is printed in 1968, supported by the State Institute of National History. The user wants to misinterpret that Yugoslavia was under USSR pressure at that time (which is totally untrue) and therefore the discrediting the source. All the economical, political and social analyses and books are there to support that theory. So, can anyone assisst me what should I do when a user is constantly discrediting my Academic source and labeling it as unrelevant? Thanks. --Forbidden History (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I would be very careful when using this source. WW2 was a highly politicized topic back then and Tito regime had really high stake here. It could be used for some basic facts, but there certainly are newer and better sources for this purpose. Pavlor (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Pavlor, thanks for your feedback - but that is what I'm trying to explain you. This event happened in Greece (the book is not about Tito and world war II, I'm not trying to source out info on World War II), but for specific event called Drama Uprising, that happened in Greece (not in Yugoslavia), in which Greeks and local Macedonians under organization of Greek Communist Party raised an uprising against Bulgarian occupiers. The book is of Academic institution in Macedonia, from 1968.--Forbidden History (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Note ties between Yugoslav and Greek (Communist) partisans (during and after WW2) is one of the mojor points of the Tito-era propaganda. I recommend not to use this source for stated purpose. Pavlor (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The Independent, again

The Independent, last revisited 1.5 years ago, but the last large discussion being 2013, its RSP entry currently reads: The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date. What is the 2020 (coming into 2021) consensus on this source? Is it generally reliable, are there topics in which it is iffy, does it have any notable biases, is it generally reliable for controversial claims about BLPs / entities? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a highly respected perfectly normal WP:NEWSORG. Did any particular dispute lead you to ask? - David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Kinda; there's an RfC on whether Parler is filled with anti-semitic content (amongst other things. came across it at AN/RFC). Most (but not all) of the sources presented for the term are ones we require attribution for such claims, or themselves attributing to a source we say should be attributed for such claims. Most top RS at my glance seem to be attributing to the ADL, with the exceptions of NYT and (now) The Independent. The comments about this source on RSP, and the peculiarity of the disparity, made me curious on what position consensus has on the source (not the first time I've ran into a situation like this). I have personally considered the source generally reliable, but I'm not sure of its biases or 'editorial scrutiny' when making controversial claims. Do you have any thoughts on if it's acceptable for this kind of remark? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Given that Parler is known to be the alt/far-right equivalent of Twitter due to Twitter's moderation on that type of content, it would be no surprise to see some editors trying to question any source that is critical of Parler, but like most alt/far-right entities, these works are going to have a negative reputation in the media period, and WP can only neutrally/impartially cover that per UNDUE. Independent is clearly reliable, and just because they may be criticizing Parler has no bearing on being an RS, only the caution of what should be attributed as opinion vs statements of fact related to the service. --Masem (t) 16:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

My question is the other way around. I'm just asking for some opinions on the source: does The Independent have a good track record for these kinds of remarks, and is it an acceptable source to use, without any attribution, for them? Further, does The Independent have any notable biases to be aware of? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess I was saying The Independent is unquestionably reliable, and it does not have an extreme bias (like Fox News' political coverage) to warrant concern for its factual reporting for this are. Its may not be the BBC or NYTimes as pinnacle reliability, but it is far and away a much stronger reliable source than most. But like nearly all media today, it is a more liberal paper that likely is going to take a more critical view of the alt/far-right, and caution should be used in separating fact from opinion from what it publishes (per WP:YESPOV) just to make sure its opinion is attributed outside of Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 17:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The Independent used to be pretty liberal, but it's probably more centrist these days, especially economically. Anyway, it's undoubtedly a reliable source. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The Independent is not biased in the Wikipedia policy sense of the word. In the real world sense, it has a social liberal (leaning classical liberal) bias in that it is slightly to the right economically but liberal on cultural issues. Party wise, it has backed the Liberal Democrats more often than any other party and has regular contributions from Vince Cable former Lib-Dem leader. This bias is not particularly extreme and can largely be discounted. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Being online is not an issue, its reputation would be. As far as I know, it has a good one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I assume when fellow editors use the term 'liberal', they are using the modern US sense of the word, rather than in any sense associated with the UK's Liberal Democrats or Liberalism in general. The only obvious political leaning that I can see is that it has been consistently anti-Brexit, as are about 50% of voters and its market position would be to that demographic (ABC1). As far as the criteria for WP:RS are concerned, I have never seen any evidence of fabrication such as with the Mail, Express and Sun but then I don't follow celebrity gossip. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The Independent is, at best, an exercise in contrarianism. It has been documented in Private Eye (and other sources) for the last decade that it has been used as a venue for less than independent journalism, with puff pieces for the Lebedevs and various friends. Coverage of Boris Johnson may be clouded by the relationship he enjoys with the man he made a peer (for example). Meanwhile investments by a Saudi investor also caused concern for its independence. It drifted further away from its broadsheet roots year by year, and started down the route of clickbait titles for its print edition which gradually got more awkward to read as there were so many throw away paid (but undeclared) advertisements, and faux "journalism" dressed up as news (most of which was just promotion of celebrity).

However, its journalists are generally well regarded, the content has shown repeated accuracy - if littered with bias to support Johnson - and they don't (to my knowledge) fabricate quotes, interviews, events, people etc to push certain narratives. In short: they are old school bias much like The Guardian and The Times are. Their coverage of science and health very much depends on if they are presenting a POV. They have a bad habit, as many media sources do, of giving disproportionate print to fringe views. Koncorde (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Primary Source wwe.com and WP:PW/RS acceptability? And a user blanking every source leaving non WP:V pure Wp:OR contents without ANY citations

The issue brought as per ANI discussion [63] User:ItsKesha has removed every single source from the article WWE Music Group discography, claiming that the primary source is not allowed. This is the discussion:

So you think iTunes is a credible source? (the mass removal of content was correct per WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:PROMO, by the way. But here you are, making yet more accusations against me). Do you think WWE's own website isn't a primary source for articles about WWE? ItsKesha (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

ItsKesha I explained multiple times, you ignorantly erase comments on your talk page, what can I do? I had it with having to repeat myself with your "attention seeking nature":

The message to User talk:ItsKesha,. ─ (User talk:ItsKesha,)

User talk:ItsKesha, um what is a wrong dude, why are you removing WP:RS from The New Era (WWE), and please do not give over linking excuse, over linking is when you use multiple (more than three sources) to reference a line, sometimes a single source is not valid enough "like when people say an event is well received, just reference to one review is not sufficient. (Also sources like post-2013 bleacher report are usable per WP:PW/RS and primary sources like wwe.com are usable as long as they are not being used for "promotional purpose", and not all usable sources needs to be part of WP:PW/RS, other WP:RS can be used as long as they are not listed unreliable in WP:PW/RS. So please stop removing WP:RS as it is sort of disruptive editing, but I will assume WP:AGF and hope you are not Wikipedia:Gaming the system which is kinda what it seems on WWE Music Group discography. Wish you well. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC) As explained Post 2013 bleacher report is allowed to be used as a source as per WP:PW/RS, and other sources not listed as unreliable on PW/RS can also be used, I had a discussion on the matter with the senior user Nikkimaria who told me and you can view the talk page (As I've already told you, WP:PW/RS is not a comprehensive list of all reliable sources, and you've cited this particular source several times. It doesn't contradict the other sources you cite either, you're just not correctly interpreting it - it refers specifically to "fair wrestlers" not all wrestlers. Given that context I see no reason to question its reliability, although you're of course welcome to raise the question at the reliable sources noticeboard. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)) and as for using primary source WWE.com, on certain circumstances to prove verifiability they can be used and they are not allowed mainly when they are used for promotional purpose, but the usage of primary source is allowed when used in a positive way, check: Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia. So please don't go blindly removing WP:RS. Thank you. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" and "Note that primary sources make no exception to the general rules regarding sources (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR,...) before they can be used as a source in Wikipedia. That are basic requirements, not further discussed in, nor modified by, the current guideline (proposal). This guideline concentrates on how to use primary sources most appropriately in Wikipedia." (The bold writing isn't my statement, its what the guidelines are and I pasted here). Primary Sources can be used when there are no secondary sources at all. Again WP:RfC is kindly requested. The current status of the article is a sourceless article based on WP:OR which is pure violation of Wikipedia guideline, and WP:OR is a bigger issue than Wp:Primary, and if you have problem with WP:Primary it is your job to bring the secondary Wp:RS to the article instead of leaving it as contents with no source, citations, WP:V whatsoever. But you do not care as long as it fits your personal agenda do you? Regardless I am not that concerned with WWE Music Group discography, I will leave it to senior editors on WP:RSN as per ANI suggestion to see if you are Wikipedia:Gaming the system or not. But I will go on protecting The Streak (wrestling) and don't go accusing me of not explaining when you say things like "I won't bother to read" as you did on the talk page there. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Doing the same on The New Era (WWE) removing wwe.com sources and sources from bleacher report which as per WP:PW/RS is usable (since 2013), non of the sources he removed are listed unreliable on WP:RS and Wp:PW/RS and he has removed sources from many other articles you can see on his contribution history [64] blanking WP:RS and leaving contents without any WP:V at all! Whats more when someone explains to him, he says "he won't bother to read [[65]] and also deletes warning messages from talk page [66]. I have repeatedly sked him to do an WP:RfC before destroying WP:V of these articles leaving WP:OR contents, but he won't do that, so I leave it here for more experienced editors to judge. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, this wasn't actually what I had in mind when I said you could take disputes over sourcing to RSN. I can't even figure out what you're asking with this long passage that you seem to have copied from somewhere. Can you state the sourcing dispute in a single sentence? Something along the lines of "I believe X is a reliable source to use for Y, is that correct?" Are you trying to ask "Is iTunes a RS to use for a discography?" —valereee (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is previous discussion about using iTunes/Amazon etc: [[67]]. The most experienced commenters there are saying it's better to omit information and leave it unsourced than to link to sales sites, so I'd say, no, don't use iTunes, Amazon, Target, etc. to source a discography, and that removing such links is the correct thing to do. —valereee (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Australian Financial Review and paywalled content

Hi folks, I was chatting in the tea room live chat yesterday with some helpful mods and they suggested I follow up here.

In short: in my first ever page submission for [Australian-based company called Envato] cites several pieces of technology and startup reporting that appears in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) - see citation numbers 5, 7, 23, 28, 30, 31 and 36. Now, the AFR has a similar rep in our country to the Wall Street Journal - and they're both owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp so that makes sense - so it's a legitimate publication with a strong editorial direction and good journalists.

However it is a publication that has a paywall and I have been advised that one of the critiques of my page is that reviewers couldn't assess the paywalled references, that my attempt to demonstrate notability for the page has been compromised. Is there a way I can share the articles that exist behind the paywall with relevant reviewers to help the assessment process? Yes, I have a subscription, that's how I found them!

FWIW, I've found one passing mention to the AFR in the Reliable sources Archive (see [[68]] where it appears alongside a noted reliable source in The Australian.

Thank you

We have absolutely no rule that references need either to be free or to be online. (Some scientific papers cost literally hundreds of dollars apiece just to read online; some books only exist in a couple of obscure libraries; they're all just as valid as something you can find for free on Google.) If someone is telling you that a reference being behind a paywall somehow invalidates it, they're flat-out incorrect. (If someone genuinely challenges something cited to a source they can't access, photograph or screenshot the relevant page and email it to them.) ‑ Iridescent 07:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Darn right. If only access to all online sources was free – but the fact is it's not. In my experience at least, more and more publications are going behind a paywall. JG66 (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The two previous editors have it spot-on. While we may not like paywalls (although we have some research tools to give us short-term access to content behind some paywalls) and we mark sources that have paywalls, we do not exclude sources just because they are behind paywalls. Wikipedia:Verifiability says that "means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" (emphasis mine). It does not say all people must be able to check it, or even be able to check it for free. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not to pile-on here, but this is essentially correct; if we have two accesspoints for a source, one free and one behind a paywall, provide a link to the free one instead. If we have a print version AND an online free version of the same source, it is a courtesy to provide the online free version. However, if an otherwise reliable source is not available in a free, online version, it doesn't alter its status as reliable. --Jayron32 15:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

AFR's a respected WP:NEWSORG so is fine as a source. Being paywalled makes no difference. If you have a login and can show a copy to the reviewer, that might help if they really doubt a given claim - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Death of Justin Berry / User:JustinBerry

I stumbled onto this article while monitoring usage of {{deceased}} which recently showed up at User:JustinBerry which led to Justin Berry. This person was involved in child porn involving himself and others, and he turned evidence against his partners in exchange for prosecutor immunity. Then he was supposedly murdered in Mexico under "mysterious" circumstances. There are no reliable source that says he is dead, everything comes back to a few social media posts. Now veering into speculation: Given porn videos of him are still presumably floating around, it could benefit him to kill off his former identity. And, if his life was threatened by people seeking revenge for turning evidence, he may be under a witness protection program as part of the immunity. These things would fit a means and motive profile. Thus reliable sources for his death are particularly important. I'm posting here in case anyone has any further ideas, or thoughts how to handle this article given what looks like sketchy sourcing. --- GreenC 16:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Green, social media posts of unconfirmed provenance are obviously not reliable sources. However, I see that Berry's estate has been probated. I went online myself (I'm a lawyer IRL) and found the court's order allowing probate. (I can forward it to you if you want, but the court's docket is already linked, and the order allowing probate doesn't say much.) An order allowing probate of an estate would seem to me to be as reliable a source as you could reasonably ask for. So I think that the encyclopedic point of view has to be that Berry is dead, and any speculation to the contrary, in the absence of reliable sources to that effect, should not be included. John M Baker (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I was not advocating for the inclusion of speculation, that would be nuts. Rather there are reasonable reasons to be suspicious of the unreliable sources claiming death, I'm not just blindly citing a "Rule". However if you think the probate is sufficient so be it. That is a WP:PRIMARY. It is surprising that given the widespread and sustained national exposure of this individual not a single one has anything to say about his mysterious murder, which normally would be cat nip for the media outlets he was covered in. -- GreenC 18:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Covid 19 URL from Facebook

I entered a URL for a facebook post, which linked to testimony being given to congress. That link was given to provide authenticity of the actual source, and greater detail for those who wished to hear it. Though FB is regarded as generally unreliable as an original source, it is not the original source. The original source is seen by clicking on the link as virologists testifying to a U.S. Senate committee.

Why not link to the original material then. In any case, "testimony" would not be WP:MEDRS if it pertained to any WP:Biomedical information; our standards for sourcing health content are waaay higher. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Anne Carlini magazine

Can an RS-guru please take a look at Anne Carlini for vetting as a reliable source? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Doubting an Academic Source

I would like to get a fair opinion regarding an academic source in the form of PDF by Flugel Peter, being referred to on the Wikipedia page named Niruben Amin, a revered Indian spiritual visionary who established Dada Bhagwan Foundation. The PDF seems to give a few details about her that do not exist on the official website of this foundation. These details also do not exist on any other academic or non-academic sources.

For example, in the Early life section of the Wiki page, it has been written that she was married and that her husband died under suspicion of suicide. One more statement says, “She later claimed that Dada Bhagwan had foretold her about the news of the death.” Well, I checked for these details online but they are shared no where else, except for the academic book from Flugel Peter. This creates an obvious suspicion.

After all, writing about the life of a famous personality should involve genuine, verifiable facts. So, should we accept the source just because it is an academic reference? Or, should we accept a reference that has facts or verifiable details? Thanks.Dipalig (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

No source is infallible. However, the chapter appears to come from this 2005 book[69] which I would say is generally reliable. It also lists the sources of information in a "notes" section at the end of the chapter, so you can double check it. Unless you see information that is contradicted by a more reliable source, I would trust it. (t · c) buidhe 00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the reference book of 2005 does not have the statements for which I am raising my doubt. While other contents in the Flugel Peter PDF may be reliable, I just found the aforementioned statements to be suspicious. So, I am looking for a fair view regarding whether for those statements, we can give the PDF reference or not. Dipalig (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: CNN

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

---

The recently leaked CNN tapes (released by Project Veritas) proved CNN's extreme anti-Trump agenda and deliberately ignoring the Hunter Biden scandal during the election. CNN is strongly biased on those topics. In the light of this, I suggest deprecating CNN as a reliable source when it comes to topics related to 2020 United States presidential election.. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

you might want to read what RS say about Project Veritas as a source before continuing this. It’s not good.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Assertion requires we believe Project Veritas, an unreliable source most notable for selective editing. Assertion requires belief being anti-Trump isn't a valid political stance for a network (or 80m people) when having a political perspective is not what makes a source unreliable. Assertion requires belief that the "Hunter Biden scandal" is anything other than what was reported - unverified. Koncorde (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I have seen no media questioning the authenticity of the tapes. When a medium deliberately avoids normalizing Trump in its reports, I would not say it is a decent medium. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Why would anyone even give the tapes the time of day? Why would the media deliberately normalise the actions of the a President spreading misinformation prior to an election, which he then tries use to overturn an election? Some would argue anyone media trying to normalise Trump isn't decent media. Koncorde (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, more basically: News sources are allowed to decide what to report on and what not. Deciding not to report on something, no matter how factually accurate it might be, does not mean that the source is no longer reliable when it comes to things it does decide to report on. Even if all the assertions were true and factual, it still would not require deprecating CNN as a reliable source because CNN has no obligation to publish everything. For RS purposes, it just has the obligation to be reliable if and when it decides to publish something. Regards SoWhy 13:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

PV is not reliable for anything, using them to deprecate a source is dodgy at best, and that is only one criticism of this RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Setting Veritas aside for a moment, the problem with this position is we could make an argument to exclude virtually all US news media as it relates to the 2020 Presidential Election. After all, every national network/newspaper buries stories that don't fit the narrative they are seeking to shape

The real change would be getting Wikipedia out of the Breaking News game, so that there is no expectation to cover the story of the day/week/month until the actual ramifications are known.

Since that position will be a non-starter for most, CNN should remain a reliable source unless evidence can be provided that they willfully and intentionally printed lies in a story and have made no effort to correct the record. (not a TV pundit lied, they should never be an RS imho)

tl;dr Omission of facts does not make a source unreliable Slywriter (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This absurdity of an RFC should not be acknowledged in the slightest. Veritas has a known, demonstrably-proven track record of selectively editing their videos, they are not a reliable since for anything on Earth. Even if we were to take the "leaks" at face value, all we know now is that...CNN feels Tucker Carlson stokes racism in his viewer base, and that they will no longer air every Trump antic that he gets up to going forward. Neither is a shocker to anyone. ValarianB (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Definition and sources on "List of active separatist movements in X" articles

The articles here that I am referreing to are below:

• List of active separatist movements in Africa
• List of active separatist movements in North America
• List of active separatist movements in South America
• List of active separatist movements in Asia
• List of active separatist movements in Europe
• List of active separatist movements in Oceania

Obviously defining which movements are notable, "active", and "separatist" is quite contentious, inevitably more so by those who seek to retain/remove certain groups from these lists. Because of this, there is a need for quality sources to define which movements are suitable enough to fill these lists. However, all of the articles listed except those on Africa and South America have the "more citations needed" template (South America may need the template as well though). My coming here is to ask, what are suitable sources to have movements listed on these articles? The current logic seems to be that movements on the lists must follow the three criteria mentioned on each article, however, many insignificant, historical, and original research groups have slipped through over time. (For example, a supposed "Yunnan Independence Movement" whose only "source" was a link to the Chinese Wikipedia existed for 5 months after having been deleted as Original Research)

I may simply be getting a little too "worked up" about these articles, but it is my hope that these articles can be made a bit more reputable with some work. Is the solution to simply keep the existing criteria and pay better attention to the articles, or is a more standard definition of proper sourcing here needed? Requiring listed movements to have an WP:RS specifically stating that they are "active" and "separatist" would certainly make the listed movements much more reputable, but simultaneously the requirement would likely remove many smaller movements and/or those in areas with poor press coverage.

I may have posted this in the wrong venue, so if there's a better place to post this, please let me know. --PubSyr (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I previously raised largely the same issue at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 73#List of active separatist movements. The referencing is virtually non-existent for most of the time, any area with a minority population of some form seems to be fair game as having an active separatist movement because there's a political party seeing a greater degree of autonomy. At List of active separatist movements in Europe there is a book cited for the phrase though separatist movements may seek nothing more than greater autonomy or to be recognised as a national minority. What the book actually says is The goals of separatist movements vary from calls for increased autonomy to demands for full independence, but this doesn't appear to have stopped people across the whole range of articles classing every organisation seeking greater autonomy of varying degrees as separatist, which isn't the case. Some separatist movements might be seeking autonomy, but that doesn't mean all autonomist movements are separatist. As for what apparently gets classed as a "movement, I refer you to this and Talk:List of active separatist movements in North America#Michigander inclusion. FDW777 (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: Yeah, as you mentioned then this is a pretty big sourcing and notability issue. I do have some Wiki-experience, but I'm by no means an expert. (If you know,) is there anywhere an RFC or proposal could be made to set the groundwork for what these movements need before they can be added? The current system really doesn't seem to separate the Tibets from the Michigans without experienced users' intervention. --PubSyr 🌲^C. 🐦^T. 14:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

This needs watching, new editor who doesn't understand our policies and guidelines adding material to the lead pushing the fringe position and adding detailed credentials, ie argument by authority. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk: 2020 Pacific typhoon season#Linfa split-RS concerns if death toll is 148

Here is the source. I can't see it being unreliable, but I can't confirm it is reliable. Looking for other people's thoughts(outside of WPTC). --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Vietnam has one of the lowest[70] ratings for press freedom in the world according to RSF. (t · c) buidhe 21:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's reliable for what Vietnamese meteorologists argued. But you will have to decide how much weight to give to that, if you don't have any views from other countries' metereologists. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable. From government-controlled media. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 23:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC: "Jihad Watch", should it be deprecated as a source?

Should "Jihad Watch" as a source be deprecated?

Apparently this has never had a formal RFC to actually deprecate it, though the previous discussion in April 2020 [71] seemed to indicate a clear consensus that it should be deprecated. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Why? Is someone trying to cite it as if it is reliable? (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I saw this edit by @LaundryPizza03: [72]. I looked back to the last discussion [73] and it seemed pretty firm towards deprecation, and yes, it still seems to be used for citations [74]. IHateAccounts (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe:Also I note that your response in April 2020 was "It's not The Daily Stormer, but not reliable either. Deprecate because of problems with accuracy.". IHateAccounts (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Support There was near-unanimous support for deprecation in the last discussion, and as noted by MarioGom (talk · contribs) in that discussion, various RS have described Jihad Watch as propagating anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. Also blacklist, per IHateAccounts' findings. There are 320 pages that link to Jihad Watch, including 38 articles that use it as a source. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Really? This is getting silly. If we have to have a formal RfC for every obviously shit source out there, this will be a never-ending task. The RSP initiative is in danger of becoming an attempt to legislate WP:CLUE. Alexbrn (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Really? I think Alexbrn is spot on. Why would we bother for a source that isn't being used. This again is a problem with the way deprecation has evolved from a tool for a very specific case into something that seems to come up every time someone sees something they don't like. I would suggest this is closed as unnecessary. Springee (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Please withdraw this. Under normal circumstances I'd just close this, but because you've put a formal RFC tag on it it needs to waste our time for 30 days unless you withdraw it. Deprecation is a tool for a few, very limited, situations in which there's a source which we deem unreliable but which has the appearances of a legitimate publication or website and consequently people try to cite it in good faith. If someone is seriously trying to cite something called "Jihad Watch" as a legitimate source, that's a competence issue not a matter for RS/N; we don't need a formal RFC for this any more than we need a formal RFC on whether Star Trek is a documentary. ‑ Iridescent 14:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)