This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

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

• No. It publishes what the PR of its subjects want published. There is no intellectual independence. Also it's crap. Guy (help!) 12:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• [2]. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_267#Hello!_Magazine --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

​This is very concerning, and the linked discussion on the first paper contains dubious responses from the paper's authors. Is this problem restricted to Annamalai University's natural science papers, or does it also extend to its papers in other fields? — Newslinger talk 08:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, it's indicative of an extreme publish or perish culture at this institution (and a few others addressed in later articles by Elisabeth Bik), so this report is probably only the beginning. Nemo 21:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Looking at our Shamsheer Vayalil article, it looks like Forbes.com is ALREADY cited... so I am not sure what you are asking. Are you saying that the version linked to in the citation is outdated, and needs updating with a more recent version? Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I am saying to update his old Forbes profile (represented as Reference 1) with new profile of 2019.The link which I provided above is of his new Forbes profile. Please, let me know about the reliability of that link and also help in restoring new link at the place of old one. I hope I'm clear enough to explain the matter.

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

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

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

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

This article published by Harvard has a generally favorable opinion on them, and again here. Outlets as varied as the New York Times and Al Jazeera seem to grant them credence as well. I would say, based on my research, they look to be reliable. --Jayron32 12:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm marginal on this. I mean again, Wikipedia shouldn't be using newspapers as RSes where it's possible to avoid it. I'd suggest we must be very careful to avoid insertion of opinion disguised as factual reporting from this source. But beyond that, it's newsmedia. Not one of the best. Not one of the worst. It's a middling quality publication from a category I am averse to. Do with this what you may. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Also, I don't see how the NYT and Al Jazeera articles say anything about HKFP; the NYT article gives a quote from the founder of HKFP and the Al Jazeera article just says that the HKFP reports on the protests. By the way, those two Harvard Nieman links are the same article; did you mean to link another one? — MarkH21 (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In my view, it's reliable enough. It's manned by serious journalists and the team is hard out there covering the protests because it's an aspect of HK that the world is hungry for news on. True that it was formed to fill the gap expected from the buyout by Alibaba, but the SCMP still has a stronger and bigger team. At the time I write the SCMP is firmly "establishment" although it's not toeing "the party line" entirely. HKFP does have a liberal bias, but in that way it's not so different to the NYT or the Guardian. Probably not everything it publishes is worth taking into the article, so I'd suggest taking care to ensure that use of this respects due weight. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable Those accusation are also reporting by way many local (HK) media in Chinese language. So, no point to make sloppy accusation based on their foundation goal. Matthew hk (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Huh? That doesn’t say anything about whether HKFP is reliable, only about the particular accusations with overlapping coverage. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable - Actually, HKFP has a close working relationship with the Apple Daily. It has more than just "liberal bias"; its news is often written to suit the (anti-government) activists' taste, i.e., what the activists claim maybe written as facts. I think the reliability of its contents would be questionable. STSC (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable Please take a look at HKFP and judge for yourself. For example the "Latest Hong Kong News" section as of Nov 16th, 2019 is called "Interview: Ex-head of legislature Jasper Tsang says the gov’t is weakest player of four in Hong Kong’s struggle" actually a purely opinion article. The article did not provide details about the interview, merely stating the interview took place "last month" - yet this is "Latest News" as at November 16, 2019 and given front page coverage. Obviously, none of the events spoken in the interview is "news" as of November 2019.

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

• Reliable I've not come across anything that would suggest that they are unreliable. They only have a small team, so they cannot report on everything. They may choose to focus on the topics their readers are interested in (like every news organisation on the planet does). I've not seen or heard any suggestion that their reporting is fraudulent, dishonest, or anything else that would warrant an accusation of their being unreliable as a source of news. They do publish a lot of opinion pieces, but these are always labelled as such as far as I've seen, which, again, is something that a great number of newspapers do. As long as these articles are not confused with their actual news reporting, I don't see any problem with their having opinion pieces, or interviews with prominent figures (such as the interview with Jasper Tsang cited above). Kdm852 (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to differentiate between their own reporting and reporting that are sourced from AFP or others. when you assert that they are RS, you can only assess when they originate the report themselves. in which case the pool of articles you are assessing from becomes extremely limited, since they publish very few pieces of reported news. and when they did try to do their own report, they've done poorly, as stated above. you said you've found nothing wrong with the interview - well of course, because they did not do the interview. it was sourced. but they did not cite that fact. which is a problem. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Another Example Here is another example of problems with their journalism when they are the original source of the report: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/11/16/breaking-chinese-army-help-clear-debris-made-protesters-hong-kong-baptist-university/

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

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

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

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

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

Because in that instance, HKFP is reporting on a "joint statement", so I don't see the point of mentioning 20+ names. RTHK likewise did not do so, so by your standard, they have poor journalistic practice as well. I don't think HKPF and RTHK cited anyone because both are doing original reporting. Judging reliability based on the quality of several articles is not ideal. I will say that they are reliable from their About page. The commendations from Reporters Without Borders alone is more than sufficient, and they have been commonly cited by other foreign news outlets, probably way more so than the likes of The Standard. Another key point is that we don't have a lot of Hong Kong-based English news outlets that are independent, and while it is not the best source out there, it makes WP:V significantly easier (because we will have to replace them with Chinese source which not everyone here can understand). OceanHok (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree on the part that HKFP should be used as a result of them being an independent English source. HKFP is founded by British and is clearly pro-British. If you go to their twitter feeds right now, they even quote the British public figures... you don't seem them quoting any Chinese speakers in similar prominence. To give such prominence (or worship) to white foreigners, who don't even live in HK on the current subject, as if they are some authoritative voice, is borderline colonialism. It really draws the question if they are as independent as they claim to be. They are also sloppy, as I previous showed. Another example of sloppiness appeared in today's article where they accused police of using LRAD as a weapon to induce dizziness. They've now retracted that claim, but not before these rumors are spreading like wildfires online. This is a problem, because they simply don't have resources to check their own work, especially when the "facts" are going their way. To be a Reliable Source, they actually need to do their own fact check. You can't just blindly say "because someone said it, so we can print it". Thats not RS. A real RS actually has to vouch for the validity of the claim being asserted. And if someone is saying bullshit, the RS has a responsibility to actually point that out on their reports or interview the opposing side for a rebuttal. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable has an experienced staff and opinion pieces are carefully marked as such. Also this ip commenting here is an SPA regarding the Hong Kong protests and seems to be parroting the official Chinese view so their views should be treated with caution imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I haven't investigated HKFP, but I would like to note that the IP appears to be inadvertently presenting a case in support of reliability. The IP appears to citing parallel sources which confirm content that was published HKFP, while attempting to ding HKFP for details that don't appear in HKFP. Reliability is about whether we can rely on the content that is published in a source. That reliability does not diminish just because someone disagrees with the author's decision to leave out names or other unnecessary details. Alsee (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable. If you go and check out the team's profile, you can see they have a strong journalism profile, worked in many newspapers before. Article looks professional. IP claims are also not strong enough to prove that HKFP is not a reliable source. —Wefk423 (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Their 2018 Annual Report clearly shows that they are a well-run operation with paid, experienced staff writers, and they carried many scoops that are subsequently reported by many other outlets. Opinion pieces should of course be treated under WP:RSOPINION. feminist (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable. I have used HKFP as a source on Wikipedia for many years and have not observed any issues. The above allegations presented above are exceptionally weak – e.g. that the Jasper Tsang interview was "lifted" from a French outlet, when the author is clearly cited as a "guest contributor" on HKFP and given a byline, or that the interview is somehow an "opinion piece". Citobun (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable. While Hong Kong has struggled with censorship The Hong Kong Free Press is a notable exception^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcibiades979 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: When it comes to accusations of misconduct, there certainly seems to be some misleading wording from HKFP. For example: in this article about a police van speeding towards protesters, the HKFP writes that:

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

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

• Reliable It is generally reliable.HAL333 19:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable Generally reliable, with an anti-establishment bias. -Zanhe (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Valereee, avoid. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Wire is NOT a news reporting source... it is a news analysis, commentary and opinion source. In that context, it can be seen as a reliable PRIMARY source. In other words, it is reliable for sourcing the analysis, commentary and opinions expressed by its various commentators. Now, whether those opinions and analysis are noteworthy will depend on the topic. That is a DUE WEIGHT issue not a reliability issue. But when mentioning what someone writing for the Daily Wire says, the Wire itself is the MOST reliable source possible for that material. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that there's two important caveats. Citations like that are WP:ABOUTSELF, ie. we can cite someone for their own opinions regardless of the reliability of the source; but first, that's only usable on articles or in sections about that person - in places where that author is directly the subject of the topic. We cannot drop rando opinions from the Daily Wire into other articles just because an editor thinks that opinion is relevant, since WP:RSOPINION still requires a basic level of reliability from the source - ie. if we're going to cite someone's opinion on our article for climate change, we need a source that will do basic fact-checking to ensure they don't say anything with glaringly inaccurate assumptions in it and that their credentials will be as described. The Daily Wire doesn't provide that. Even when the writer is directly relevant, we also cannot use such cites for statements about other people, even on their own page, and would have to be cautious about shocking or exceptional things. "I think taxes are too high", coming from an American conservative commentator, could obviously be cited to their statements even in an article on an otherwise low-reliability publication. Them saying "I think climate change is bunk!" could maybe be cited there, if it's in-line with their other statements, on their article to establish their views (never on a general article about climate change, only when the author is the direct focus of the text), but for that we'd need to use some caution because saying that they hold a fringe view is potentially WP:BLP-sensitive if there's any reason to doubt it at all. Them saying "Senator Joe is a corrupt asshole who is on the take" (or making any other statements at all about a living person) could not be cited to their own statements in the Daily Wire under any circumstances, because it's a statement about a third party. (None of this has to do with the Daily Wire's reliability, though; it would be equally true if they posted it on their blog or on a verified Twitter account.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This does not look like "commentary", nor like it's "reliable".[5][6] François Robere (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

​It's probably not a good idea to take Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) at face value, since it's a self-published source that we consider generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 11:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

So it is ok for BLP issues? I doubt it. 19:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It isn't, but that's because of reliability and not bias, which are separate issues. (Separate-ish, I suppose, since bias can sometimes lead to unreliability. But even if we took the Media Bias / Fact Check statement at face value it wouldn't be enough on its own. The problem is that they publish misleading or inaccurate things and push fringe opinions, not why they do those things.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I would absolutely not treat The Daily Wire as generally reliable, if for no other reason that its association with shrill Ben Shapiro of Breitbart fame. On top of that, the site is very opinion oriented. It's so-called news tends to be deeply intermingled with its opinion content.[7][8][9]. How often does one see a reputable source cite something in The Daily Wire? Not often. - MrX 🖋 22:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely not generally reliable. They have a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified per Snopes, and they take a WP:FRINGE position on climate change. They also have a history of errors and inaccuracies without correction. I would only use it for narrow WP:ABOUTSELF things. --Aquillion (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Scores high for bias and low for reliability on https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/. I generally avoid it. Guy (help!) 14:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Is the BBC unreliable for Brexit? I don't like newsmedia and am not pushing for People's Daily to be used more but I think Wikipedia is showing an inappropriate bias by separating out "enemy state" state-owned media from "friend-state" state-owned media. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure or familiar with these sources, but there is a difference between state-owned media and state-run media, and the OPs objection is not the financial backing of the organization, but rather the involvement of the machinery of state with the editorial running of the organization. The BBC is extensively insulated from the British state and the British state has no editorial control over it, despite providing it with financial backing. That may or may not be true for the sources listed above, but the OPs objection isn't who signs the checks, but who checks the news before it goes out... --Jayron32 20:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, There are certainly many complaints about the BBC's Brexit coverage, but the BBC is generally reckoned to be one of the most reliable news sources in the world. Guy (help!) 13:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It's naive to assume that liberal state owned media is not state run. Or that its bias is any less egregious. We should not be using news media as a source; but Chinese news media is not less reliable than British or Canadian news media. It's all unreliable, recentist POV garbage. Simonm223 (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

So only capitalist, private industry can be trusted to provide reliable sources? Based on what you wrote here, nothing you write going forward should be trusted. Everything you write should be scrutinized for bias and WP:POV. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, the Chinese government controls what their media say. The British government does not control what the BBC says. The Chinese government is totalitarian. The British government is not. China is a one-party state, the UK is not, and government changes hands regularly.

No, the BBC is not "state-run". Guy (help!) 17:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not familiar with too what extent BBC is affected by the state and how do you categorize sources with different levels of reliability on enwp. It is widely acknowledged that People's Daily is clearly biasing on politics reports related to the interests of CCP and its government. Like all other state-backed media in China, People's Daily think itself as the "mouthpiece" of CPP unabashedly. But it does not mean it is not reliable at all or should be thought to be only "opinion pieces" (actually a new concept to me, no corresponding word in Chinese). The general rule we follow in zhwp is: treating it as an RS for items is not highly controversial & politics-related; using it much more carefully otherwise and attempting to catch more sources with different opinions/stands for balance.

FYI, "Journalism must thoroughly adhere to the principle of correctly directing public opinions. Newspapers, journals, and radio and television stations of the party at all levels should be guided, and urban newspapers and magazines should also follow the principle. The party’s press and public opinion work adheres to the principle of party spirit, and the most fundamental thing is to uphold the party’s leadership over the work of public opinion. The media hosted by the party and the government is the propaganda position of the party and the government, and must be surnamed the party." (talks by CCP leader from here; Google translated with slightly manual fix) So it is reasonable to assume the reliability of such kinds of media on politics-related issues is below average. --虹易 (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Chinese state media is general unreliable, especially when it comes to domestic reporting. The difference between Chinese state media and an outfit like the BBC is that the BBC has editorial and institutional independence, Chinese state endue does not. Chinese state media is in fact less reliable than most other state media, even the media of some other autocratic countries like Qatar. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• People's Daily, Qiushi, and other Chinese state-controlled media outlets are generally reliable, though biased, sources. Commenters such as Horse Eye Jack seem to be confusing WP:Reliable with WP:Biased. I studied East Asian History at an American university and read extensively on Chinese history, and almost all historians, Western and Chinese alike, rely heavily on official Chinese press. For example, The Cambridge History of China, considered the most complete and authoritative history of China published in English, includes a guide on Chinese official sources. According to its authors, which include the most famous names in Western Sinology, "The Chinese press provides the staple for research on China: books, journals, and newspapers", and they go on to guide the readers on how to locate essential sources such as People's Daily and Red Flag (the predecessor of Qiushi) in Western libraries. Of course, these sources are obviously biased and need to be used with caution, and facts (such as biographical details, meetings, appointments, awards, etc) need to be separated from opinions or propaganda (such as interpretations of facts), the latter requiring attribution per WP:Biased. But if we were to treat government-affiliated sources as unreliable, we might as well quit writing about China altogether, as most topics completely lack non-Chinese sources. -Zanhe (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Well when we ask ourselves the question "Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?” about Chinese state and CCP media the answer is “no.” At the very least they must be attributed in a way that a state media organization with actual editorial independence (BBC, DW, etc) don't have to be. One problem we run into academically and on wikipedia is the fact that there isn't a single media organization in Mainland China which has “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” I agree that this makes our lives very hard when it comes to covering China, but that doesn't mean we are going to throw out the rules and view unreliable sources as reliable simply because there are no alternatives. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"There isn't a single media organization in Mainland China which has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - that's clearly your personal opinion. I've read numerous academic books on China (including the entire series of The Cambridge History of China) and have never seen any scholar say that. On the contrary, they use Chinese press as the basis for their research (see citation above). It's clear that Chinese media are censored on sensitive topics and biased in their interpretations of facts, but the vast majority of Chinese topics are not politically sensitive (I've written articles for more than 1,000 of them) and the facts they do choose to publish are generally reliable. -Zanhe (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

They use it as the basis for their research because its all that exists... If you want to study post-1949 China you're going to need to use PRC government documents and publications by definition. They know full well that its not reliable, trustworthy, or independent. Per WP:NOTJOURNAL we cant assume that the general reader knows that Mainland Chinese sources are unreliable, something that in the context of a Chinese studies journal all readers would know. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note where China falls in the Press Freedom Index... It is the fourth worst country on earth in terms of press freedom. If we dont treat Turkmen, North Korean, or Eritrean media as reliable why in the world would we treat Chinese media as reliable? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Again you're misunderstanding WP:Biased and substituting your personal opinion for academic practice. Press freedom has a lot to do with bias (censorship of dissenting opinions and inconvenient facts), but little to do with reliability (preventing false information): the freest media source is social media, which is also the least reliable. And what does WP:NOTJOURNAL have to do with this discussion? It's all about how to write content, not how to interpret sources. -Zanhe (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Press freedom has a lot to do with the dissemination of false and misleading information... While the Chinese state may have immense power to stop the dissemination of false and misleading information its kind of a moot point when they are themselves the prime purveyor of that false and misleading information. My own personal opinion is irrelevant here. Your point about social media being the freest media confuses me, just like the traditional media social media is as free as the country it operates in/is based in. Are you unaware that in many countries social media is heavily censored and policed? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a classical red herring. When I mention social media as the freest form of media, I'm obviously talking about uncensored social media in the West. -Zanhe (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

If you insist on invoking WP:Biased then why ignore the line that so clearly states "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.” Being biased/opinionated is not a get out of jail free card from the normal reliability checks. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This mainly applies to commercial sources. Governments are presumed to exercise editorial control and fact checking (censorship is an extreme form of editorial control). -Zanhe (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ummmmmm... No... Censorship does not count as editorial control. That is an extraordinary claim and as such needs rather extraordinary support. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

As for what mainstream China Studies scholars think look no further than the piece Ian Easton published in the Taipei Times *today*[10]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Your citation of a clearly biased opinion piece betrays your lack of knowledge in the field. Mainstream scholars of modern China are professors at major universities like John Fairbank, Roderick MacFarquhar, Frederick Teiwes, Allen S. Whiting, Rana Mitter, M. Taylor Fravel, and so on, not a junior researcher (who doesn't even have a Ph.D.) named Ian Easton at a minor think tank. -Zanhe (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

And you can’t provide citations from them because? At the very least I doubt any of them published a piece in a WP:RS *today* (also its an editorial not an non-editorial opinion piece, there is a massive difference). You also have to engage the other two points, you’re deflecting from the meat of the issue. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a total tangent but if you want to talk about betraying a lack of knowledge in the field of China Studies you appear to be under the impression that the Project 2049 Institute is a minor think tank... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Duh, I provided citations from them at the very beginning. John Fairbank and Roderick MacFarquhar are the chief editors of The Cambridge History of China Volumes 14 and 15: history of the PRC (Allen S. Whiting was one of the authors). They're the ones who wrote the guide on how to locate and use Chinese media sources. -Zanhe (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

All three of those men are dead, Fairbank since 1991. You’re going to have to do better than that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not a good faith argument. Renowned scholars, even after they die, are still far more reliable than living political hacks working for agenda-driven think tanks. BTW, Frederick Teiwes, Rana Mitter, Larry Wortzel, M. Taylor Fravel, etc. are alive and well, and they cite plenty of Chinese press, as do practically all sinologists. -Zanhe (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The question is not whether they use/cite the Chinese press, the question is whether they say that the Chinese press is reliable, has editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and is independent of the Chinese Government and CCP. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

• newsoftheworld.co.uk   / newsoftheworld.com  
• News of the World

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

• I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not technically the same as The Sun, but along those lines. It was famously disreputable for decades. Even as it had occasional genuine news scoops. Has it the same useful pretty-reliable status as the Sun and Daily Mail do for facts of sports coverage? (Though never material about the sportspeople.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Because of who is doing this, and how they're proposing to do this. I would support a TBAN against them doing anything similar, in thr future.

The NotW is trash. It is remarkable that we even have such links used as references. There is a possibility of some in a self-referential context being valid, but that's a separate situation.

But, all that said, I do not want (in the strongest possible terms) Guy to do another of these crusade runs. Particularly one expressed as ""remove the couple of hundred links we have", i.e. to remove all of them, and with no attempt at per-use review. We've seen this before, and these runs have not been a good thing. I raised the Daily Mail run just a week ago Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Daily_Mail_bulk_removals_(again). Despite the fact we have RfCs in place that we will not remove the DM automatically like this. We've also had the castles run, where Guy used WP:FAIT to remove a source he had no understanding of, then it was opposed on the grounds that the author of the site was being overly modest and in fact it ought to be regarded as WP:RS, because of the author's standing in that field. But by then, the damage was done.

Guy should not be making bulk runs like this. They are badly done (they leave stranded citations, and they remove RS sources to other sites, amongst other problems). They are also blanket runs, removing everything, with no attempt made at any per-use editorial judgement. For those two reasons, this is a bad idea.

It's also disappointing that Guy has taken the proposition "The NotW is not a fit source" and established a track record for his problem removals so bad that it's now a questionable idea that he should be doing something, when that's so evidently an overall good idea. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

WTF? A topic ban for unsuspecting the NOW (a news paper closed down for wrong doing) is not an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe try reading the paragraph above? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Then I suggest you take it to ANI and not here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur that if you're claiming that this is intrinsically wrong, you need ANI or similar - if you think you have a case, you need to make it. You're not even discussing the paper, just ranting about another editor you don't like - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I will add you oppose based on arguments, not who makes them, that validates the oppose.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think it's intrinsically wrong - and if I did, this would be the place to discuss that.

My point is that Guy has used this crusade tactic before, and has done so badly and with damaging effects afterwards. He has zero interest in cleaning up any such mess, it's just his edits, therefore they're self-justifying on that basis alone.

Should we make some effort to clean up and remove NotW sources? Probably.

Is Guy the person to do so? Absolutely not. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

If you think Guy should be topic banned from removal of sources, the correct venue to bring that up is WP:ANI. Such a discussion should not happen here. Gather some diffs and build your evidence at WP:ANI and the discussion can happen there. --Jayron32 17:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No, you're explicitly not discussing the quality of the source, you're making an extended personal attack on another editor. If you think you have a case to make - that keeping known-untrustable sources is good actually, and Guy should be sanctioned for removing the known-untrustable sources - you need to bother making it convincingly. So far you're WP:1AM - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is why I see Guy as not being a suitable editor to do this type of bulk removal: Trump–Ukraine scandal just this evening:

• 1RR: "Reverted good faith edits by WoodElf (talk): Not good sources, especially Fox News"
• 2RR: "Reverted good faith edits by WoodElf (talk): This is rouced to Fox News. At the very least that needs consensus on Talk. See WP:BRD."
• (improving sourcing)
• " it had already reached the point where unpicking it is not easy, and in any case it's better to discuss sourcing - especially crappy sources like Fox - on Talk, as I have done."

Also WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WoodElf and RS

This is a highly contentious current politics article. Deservedly it's subject to a 1RR restriction. A restriction which Guy clearly has no intention of following.

Secondly, he's acting here with a possibly laudable intention, although unsupported by WP policy and against WP:RS/P. However his actions are careless and are actually doing the opposite of it. Rather than "removing a Fox source added by WoodElf", WoodElf hadn't added this, Guy hadn't removed it, and what Guy's actually done is to remove two RS (BBC & Reuters). The Fox source is simply beng moved from place to place, by both of them.

Finally, when challenged and eventually accepting that his edits have been doing the opposite of what he both claimed and presumably thought, his response is "it had already reached the point where unpicking it is not easy," and a refusal to revert. Yet again: he does the wrong thing, multiple other editors challenge this, and his only reponse is a refusal to fix what he has created.

Any other editor (or a non-admin) would be looking at blocks for this attitude - just the 2RR would be enough. Look at the treatment of WoodElf at ANI, with no question of Guy's actions.

And under all of it, we have no sanction or deprecation against Fox News. Maybe we ought to (I'd support it, especially on US politics), but until such time as we do, there's no basis to act as if we do.

Every time I see one of these bulk blanking runs, we get the same or similar results. Being in such a hurry to demonstrate how 'right' they are over everyone else, that they're making errors all over, but then never either accepting this, or fixing it afterwards. That's why, even for good reasons like cleaning up NotW, Guy should not be the person doing this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support deprecating the source and removing any inappropriate uses of it. So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness (there would be places where its use would be necessary; for example when used to cite a direct quote, etc.) however, wherever it is being used as an inline cite for anything said in Wikipedia's voice should be removed with extreme prejudice. --Jayron32 14:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• What does "deprecate" mean? It's a word I use a lot. But what does it mean in the WP content context? We seem to have never agreed this, and it's significant.

When "deprecate" is used in the context of the definition of formal standards, then it almost always means "We don't like this, we don't want to create any more of it, but we recognise that there's no way to make its existence go away immediately." So it begins by not creating any more instances of it. But it doesn't begin with a steamroller to remove all existing instances, and to leave gaps behind instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Deprecate means to express disapproval of and to withdraw official support for or discourage the use of/to seek to avert. I hope that helps. Also, sometimes a citation needed tag is better than using a bad source. The use of a bad source would imply that no one needs to find something. A CN tag alerts readers to research for a source. With sources of the lowest possible quality (that is, sources known to actively make things up rather than just be of unknown reliability), it is frequently better to simply remove them. As I noted, however, I have not advocated for 'remove all existing instances". I have listed places where it would be useful to retain the source in question, however we should simply not use the source to speak in Wikipedia's voice because it really is that bad. Other uses, where we make it clear we are directly quoting and attributing it to the source, may be useful. I will point out that when I said "So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness" what I had actually meant was "So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness". I hope that also clarifies it, since you seem to have misunderstood me there. --Jayron32 17:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• So you're using it with the meaning of "express disapproval of"? I can support that. But that's not the same as bulk, unchecked removal of them throughout.

Also there is a difference between avert and revert: I have no problem averting these, i.e. to avoid the creation of any more. But again, that's not the same thing as a bulk removal of them.

Rather than removal and ((citation needed)), we also have a tag ((better source needed)). It's intended for precisely this situation, nor does it imply the prior removal of the existing source. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, we're going to have to continue to disagree there. I agree that in many cases, the "better source needed" tag is appropriate; however not in all cases, and this particular source presents one where removing it is a better option. That isn't always true, or even usually true, but it is sometimes true, and this is one of those times, when I would rather have no source than this one. Secondly, and I'm going to repeat this a third time because you have missed it the other two times, I have not said that we should do a "bulk removal". I have said, and I quote again, "So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness." I would be rather opposed to any sort of blind removal of sources just on the name; however where the source is being used to cite text in Wikipedia's own voice rather than to cite a direct quote with in-text attribution (for example, in an article where its unreliability is being directly addressed, and where direct quotes are needed to establish its wrongness), then we should of course not remove those citations. I could also probably, if given enough time, come up with other times we wouldn't remove it. So no, we should not remove them in a "bulk" manner, but we should still use the ones that are being used inappropriately, which would be anywhere the source is being used as an inline cite for text in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 20:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Jayron32, I remove deprecated unreliable sources when they are redundant to other, more reliable ones. Otherwise I tag the cite as needing a better source.

I remove predatory open access journals wherever I find them.

David Gerard also does some of this, but very few of us do, so without this effort, sources we all agree are worthless remain in Wikipedia untouched. Guy (help!) 09:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes - I've been systematically removing a lot of deprecated sources lately, on the basis that deprecated sources have been deprecated because we literally cannot trust them not to be lying nonsense, and they are actually worse than having nothing. News of the World is definitely that quality of source, by the way - there is no reasonable justification for using it as a source for anything, except maybe sporting facts, and then only in desperation. If Andy is opposed to this, he needs to make his case that keeping known-untrustworthy sources is good actually, and get the community to concur. "Deprecated" means "can't be trusted for anything." They absolutely should be removed, as should substantial claims cited only to them - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, I am not removing and leaving ((cn)), I am tagging as needing a better source unless the source is redundant (i.e. one of two or more sources for the same text) in which case I am removing it altogether and leaving the other sources. So basically you're telling me I should be doing exactly what I am doing, but at the same time saying I should be topic banned for doing it. Guy (help!) 09:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• So your announcement at the top here, I propose to tag and then remove the couple of hundred links was false?

The trouble is that I don't believe your new claim. I've never seen you doing that before. I've not seen you use ((better source needed)), but I've seen you remove citations altogether a lot, even when that blanket removal was being challenged here. As to (i.e. one of two or more sources for the same text) I've also seen you remove all of the citations in such a group, even when some were RS. And of course, when you create technical errors like that, even if you grudgingly admit them later, then you're never the one doing the cleanup work afterwards.

As already stated (and mis-read by nearly everyone in this thread) I'm not looking to preserve use of the NotW. But, given your demonstrated track record on similar actions, I don't trust your competence to do so. You seem confused as to whether you're immediately removing them or not. You keep using "deprecated", yet there is no definition of this term available, in the way in which you or WP are using it, so just what does that mean? (see the multiple definitions given above). You have taken the WP:DAILYMAIL RfC which did not support bulk removal and then cited them to justify exactly such a bulk removal. Yes, I see your actions as unsupported and inappropriate, and, more surprisingly, they even fail WP:COMPETENCE because your collateral damage keeps affecting non-targets as well. But you're an admin, so you're immune at ANI and there's no point wasting my time there. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be an admission that you literally don't have a case - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear: deprecate, remove, scour. NotW has always been a worse-than-useless source that is absolutely unsuitable for Wikipedia. I might make an exception for sporting facts if there's no other source - as with the Sun and Daily Mail - but that's about it - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• So are there further substantive non-derailing opinions on News Of The World? - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes and if it continues it should be take to ANI as disruption.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

And if you try your "Anyone who disagrees with me is being disruptive" scare tactic any further, guess where you're going? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Have you considered that this discussion perfectly fits the description at WP:1AM? Please cut it with the personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate (personally I'd be closer to "kill with fire" but that's a disruptive opinion) I have removed all remaining citations to the News of the World on BLPs, so there are now none left. I still have plans to fix the 123 remaining BLPs that are citing The Sun. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not opposed to deprecating the source. Nor with how Guy has indicated they plan to handle it like adding a 'better source needed' tag. I would oppose replacing the source with a 'citation needed' tag as some have suggested for Daily Mail and I think here. As has been indicated, this can actually make things worse, as the Daily Mail may have details (often at least a time frame) which can make finding other sources easier. It would be better to simply remove the info as uncited which is technically justified for any uncited content. That said, it's IMO an open question about whether info sourced to a deprecated source should be treated exactly the same as uncited content. And in addition, although removing uncited content is justified, mass removing uncited content can be disruptive in some cases. (Although it's complicated. If someone comes a cross a BLP largely uncited, it will be difficult to find fault with an editor who pares it down to a bare minimum.) If editors are concerned that the 'better source needed' tag doesn't adequately convey the problem, we should consider some new tag to do so rather than causing problems for other editors by removing the info which may be needed to find another source. (I mean this isn't quite as bad as those who think it's okay to remove a dead bare URL, but still....) In addition, we can also consider delinking the source (making it so it's only text) if people feel that is necessary to help protect readers. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thinking about it more, technically we could probably also do something so the details are hidden to the reader but are still there. Ultimately there are surely many solutions if editors are concerned about the possible harm from readers reading the deprecated source which don't require us removing the source and replacing it with a citation needed tag potentially causing problems for anyone wanting to find a source. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  It's arguably a source whose claims can literally not be trusted, and such claims should be removed - particularly in BLPs. Though we'd need a proper RFC, which this isn't - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  To be clear, my concern here was with the suggestions that instead of removing the content, we should remove the source and replace it with a fact tag. I'm not necessarily opposed to removing the content, although as I implied and elabourated in more detail below, the problem with removing content is while it's technical justified for any specific content, outside of BLPs, mass removing content across a whole host of articles simply because it's unsourced tends to be seen as disruptive. Nil Einne (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

RfC: News of the World

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

"Commercial nature" is not a strike against a source's reliability. The first duty of a publisher is to turn a profit, because closed publishers don't produce sources.

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

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

• The Epoch Times (RSP entry) is currently classified under "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply", but we haven't had any noticeboard discussions since the August NBC News report "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". Deprecating The Epoch Times would require consensus in a formal request for comment, which this discussion could easily be converted into. — Newslinger talk 02:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias does not make it not RS as such, usable with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a typical "biased source" and as such can be used per policy with appropriate attribution. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The Epoch Times isn't a matter of bias. It's a matter that it deliberately and calculatedly publishes misinformation. It should be deprecated. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Bias doesn't make a source unusable, but intentionally misleading its readers does. The Facebook ban was for that sort of misinformation, which I feel is a decent reason to consider them unreliable - Facebook doesn't ban ads from news sources lightly (after all, doing so costs them money.) NBC News' coverage describes them as spreading conspiracy theories about Trump's political enemies, and the New York Times says the same thing, which would at the very least make them a WP:FRINGE source, not one we can really use for very much. --Aquillion (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah this isn't just bias. In addition to more or less openly campaigning for Trump, they've got credulous reporting on Qanon and Pizzagate, as well as vaccine scaremongering, and viral cancer quackery. Reporting from NBC News, Buzzfeed make it pretty clear that they're pushing false or misleading viral content related to contemporary politics. This is exactly the sort of content that has no place on Wikipedia. Nblund ^talk 17:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That does not look good at all... My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Blacklist ASAP. How has this propaganda machine not been blacklisted yet? It's really remarkable—it couldn't be clearer that under no circumstance is The Epoch Times a reliable source, IMO. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support RFC I'm not sure if this came up the previous discussion, but the Washington Post also reported on some issues with Wikipedia's use of the Epoch Times at the entry for Hunter Biden. This search of main space links turns up a number of cases where they're cited for pseudo-science (this story at Past life regression, and heavy use of this crazy story at This Man), and it is still cited on a number of BLPs and on stories related to Trump-Russia (Joseph Misfud, Paul Manafort). It's even cited at the entry for QAnon. The site is ubiquitous on social media, and it looks just presentable enough that users might sometimes mistake it for a reliable source. Based on this, I think its worth establishing a general consensus. Nblund ^talk 19:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Support deprecating The Epoch Times as a reliable source per nom and Nblund. See my RfC below re: Media Matters for America. We should not be, either, considering PACs and non-profits directly connected to PACs to be reliable sources. Doug Mehus T·C 00:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The Epoch Times

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

Not how you're using them. See WP:BLP and especially WP:BLP#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY is explicit in saying "Do not use public records that include personal details". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Also how reliable is persopo.com?Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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

• The roster lists do generally give sources. For example, on MoPac, it's Extra 2200 South, Diesel Era, Missouri Pacific Diesel Power, Railroad & Railfan, and Trains. I don't propose to go into all of those now, but I would say that they are all, for different reasons, reliable sources. I've had several occasions to check the Diesel Shop's rosters against reliable sources in my possession (a tedious, time-consuming task), and I've found that they're accurate. A note on that point: reliable sources do cover locomotive rosters. I have several published books which have printed them, in various formats; Railroad History, the publication of the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society, has also printed them. These sources have certain limitations: some don't cover export models (while some do), some omit industrial railroads (for example, Jeff Wilson's Guide to North American diesel locomotives (2017) does not include EMD SD40s delivered to Detroit Edison). The Diesel Shop aggregates existing reliable sources, as we would, but without the hassle of going through fifty years of back numbers of Extra 2200 South (which isn't the main topic here).
• Now, all that said, there are two main reasons the Diesel Shop is cited: locomotive rosters (for the inevitable Original owners section), and locomotive performance data. The latter is much more easily replaced by manuals and secondary sources. The former is tricky, because of my above comments on completeness. To the extent that we're relying on the Diesel Shop to aggregate and collate existing sources, as opposed to its own original research, I think we can consider using it with other sources. I recognize that's something less than calling it a reliable source.
• The administrator of the site is R. Craig Rutherford (see [32]). His listed sources there includes a blend of reliable and unreliable sources, including unfortunately Wikipedia to "research historical and background info on railroads." I don't think that impacts roster reliability; otherwise we'd have a WP:CIRCULAR problem. Rutherford himself has published at least two books: Alco's FA : running in the shadow and Michigan's railroad scene; a rail fan's guide (this one appears to be self-published). I wouldn't say that makes him a recognized expert in the field of locomotives generally, but others may feel differently. I can't say the name rang a bell. He may be an expert on ALCOs, having published on the subject, but that's a specific question requiring a deeper look into ALCO scholarship. Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mackensen:,I I believe we could consider self-published books through self-publishing vanity presses on the same level as "some dude that has a website". Anyone can self-publish their own book through self-publishing vanity presses. Graywalls (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Graywalls: If they're not a recognized expert, then yes, a vanity or self-published source would be unacceptable. However, Thomas Taber self-published his three-volume history of the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad, but no questions his suitability as a source. Whether that applies in the case of Rutherford, either for ALCOs or diesel locomotives more generally, is unclear at this time. ALCO'S FA, Running In The Shadow was published by Four Ways West Publications, which is a specialty publisher focusing on railroads. Books of their imprint are used on ~20 articles. Rutherford's book was reviewed in Trains in July 2006.^[1] I don't presently have access to the issue to see what was said about either Rutherford or the book. Mackensen (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Looks a lot like $FANSITE to me. There is a massive infrastructure of railway publishing, including periodicals and whole publishers dedicated to the field, so I'd say if it can't be cited to one of those reliable sources we should simply exclude. Guy (help!) 00:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it probably can, but with the caveat that for data from the 1950s-1970s involving private American companies data is harder to come by, which is a key difference with British railroading. Extra 2200 South, which the Diesel Shop uses extensively, is probably the best source on these questions (and relied on heavily by recent publications), but it's never been digitized nor indexed, is long out of print, and is held in about twenty libraries. I don't consider the Diesel Shop the best source, but to the extent that it relies on reliable sources it's reliable, and should be retained until the information can be sourced from a better location. The issue is clouded in that the specific complaint is about an ALCO article, and Rutherford may be a recognized expert on ALCO. I'm not entirely sure if this discussion is meant to be broader in scope. Mackensen (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • That would be WP:UNDUE issue as well. Just how much details, such as the weight, glass bulb dimensions, plant location, production start and end date, quantity per carton, cartons per master carton, retail vendor information should we have for the A7A19A60WESQD03 7.5W 120v light bulb? There are probably some internal literature that have all that information. Some light bulb fanatic dude might have a self published website on it and that fanatic might be considered an expert, but being a comprehensive, but not exhaustive means including ALL OF THAT anywhere on Wikipedia is probably WP:UNDUE and with all the arduous details of no interest to those other than rail fans is treading down the same path IMO. Graywalls (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @Graywalls: What would be undue? Please be specific. You don't seem to be replying to anything I said, so I'm a little confused. If you're saying that a list of original owners would be undue, then there's no consensus for that view, and in any case it has nothing to do with the matter at hand, which is the reliability/expertise of Rutherford. Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
        • @Mackensen:, specific details, such as who originally bought which specific vehicles/customer database type information. Those are of interest to rail fanning special interests, but Wikipedia is not a place for including everything out there, especially information that seems to be only published by railfan personal websites. Wikipedia:NOTEVERYTHING. "data is harder to come by" isn't seen as an excuse for citing fan-sites, is it? I mean, there are probably data out there for dimensions of model specific faucet parts, vacuum cleaner belt weight, elastomer material used, serial # nomenclature and all those details that are verifiable, yet without being appropriate to tabulate into Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
          • @Graywalls: You're really all over the place here. None of this seems to have to do with source reliability. What I said was that a website which is surfacing reliable sources that are hard to come by, but which are known to exist, may be a suitable source pending better sources. This is entirely separate from the question of whether the information should be included at all, and there is a world of difference between saying who bought the thing, and giving minute details about that thing. You'll have no argument from me about excluding railfan trivia, but you go too far (and enough with the analogies already, we get it). Mackensen (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
            • @Mackensen:, the reliability of source plays a role in whether the inclusion of materials from that source carries due weight, so that is within the scope of reliable sources noticeboard. I don't remember off top of my head, but there is a wiki page that says if it's important enough, reliable sources would have written about it. Graywalls (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
              • @Graywalls: Well in that case the question is easy. The information exists in reliable sources, but they are offline and difficult to access. It's a well-recognized principle, for many reasons, that we do not discriminate against offline sources. Mackensen (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
                • @Mackensen:, So, the best way would to be to convert it to a basic citation; rather than linking to a fan site. Graywalls (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
                  • @Graywalls: I have no idea what you mean by this. Is "it" the link to the diesel shop? It's hard to see how if you don't accept this as an acceptable link, you wouldn't have the same scruples about using it in a citation. By "convert it", do you mean go find all the offline sources and work from them? I'd love to, and will do so some time prior to the heat death of the universe. But we are very much in Wikipedia:There is no deadline territory (an essay you should ponder), and very far from whether Rutherford is an expert on ACLOs.

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

As long as the content meets the standards described at WP:SELFPUB, it should be acceptable. Bass clearly controls that blog. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oh no. That one looks like nothing useful. Worse, the page Fred Bass was probably created and recently edited by the subject himself, reads like an obvious self-promotion, and probably should be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I hear you. Let's continue this discussion on Talk:Fred Bass. I'll copy your comment over there. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

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

• I've previously been advised that it's generally reliable dependent on the particular sources used in each article. As it is a tertiary source its a depository of secondary and primary sources some of which are more reliable than others but overall generally reliable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, good. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• What do you mean by Reliable for content being in the source cited by it? Can you give an example? It does not sound very appropriate.—eric 17:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • For example, cited in Sea slug, where their "Sea slug" article is from The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.; asking whether it is reliable that if Encyclopedia.com states their Sea slug content is from Columbia, that's accurately where it's from. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't see Columbia in the "sea slug" entry on encyclopedia.com. It has content from a Quick Reference[33] of Oxford's World Encyclopedia. The link in the citation does not support the text it is attached to. Neither does the "sea slug" entry in Columbia 6th. This is completely inappropriate.—eric 13:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Archived version does have Columbia 6th. Correct after all, but possibly better to use archive link. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for all purposes per nom. It seems like it's a content aggregator, aggregating content from multiple editorially-controlled sources, so it's an appropriate tertiary source. If, on the other hand, it were like Wikipedia or Everipedia, then it wouldn't be an appropriate source. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • but you cite the original work right, and just say "retrieved from encyclopedia.com"? There are also articles which are unusable.—eric 18:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • it depends, if an article is sourced from all reliable sources then it can be cited directly Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Can't always see the original source, if in print but not online. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • One added thought. Bear in mind that just because something is in Encyclopedia.com doesn't mean that it is notable in Wikipedia terms. I would suggest using it only as a supplementary source articles for which notability is demonstrated through other sources. On the other hand, it couldn't hurt to look through their corpus to determine what subjects are covered there that are not covered here, just to make sure that we are not missing anything. BD2412 T 04:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• No, this is simply not a source, but a web search engine. My very best wishes (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thats wrong, according to their wikipedia article they have articles from many reliable encyclopedias many of which are based completely on reliable sources just as a paper encyclopedia. Some articles are unsuitable but many are good quality and can be used here, each article needs to be assessed individualy as ive been advised before here Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I see. In addition to search (which goes outside the source), it also allows browsing like here. Then, it works as an "aggregator/search engine" of articles collected from various other tertiary sources. Still, this not a source itself, but a "source finder". It may be useful to find other sources, but should not be used for in-line referencing itself. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Not a source per se, but can be used as a link in a source. They aggregate or host content from other sources without modifying it, so citations should be to the source of that aggregation rather than to encyclopedia.com; however, their sources are usually good, so citations to encyclopedia.com should generally be modified to name the original source and just use encyclopedia.com as a courtesy link. I don't feel that encyclopedia.com itself adds weight or reliability beyond what its sources have, which makes me feel like it's a mistake to name it as the source of the citation, albeit a minor mistake in most cases (eg. if they cited a Reddit post for an entry, would we trust that entry? No. Whereas a genuine reliable source could do a story about a Reddit post, and we could cite that.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I shudder at how much modern "journalism" is done by scouring social media for juicy tidbits. We're not allowed to do that on Wikipedia, but that's all the headlines at CBS news. Elizium23 (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ehhhh. This is getting off-topic, but... the reality is that stuff that happens on social media does matter nowadays. And that means it sometimes rises to the point where it belongs in an encyclopedia. Secondary sources likewise have to cover it when it's relevant (thankfully for us.) Like, not everything Donald Trump tweets is relevant, but some of it certainly is. Similarly, while the vast majority of Reddit posts are insignificant, something like that EA post that was the most-downvoted post of all time does say something about how that particular aspect of that particular product was received, and got significant secondary coverage to that end. It's silly to demand that secondary sources rely on only what we would consider WP:RS primary sources, since often the point of a secondary source is to take those things and provide the interpretation and analysis that would be WP:OR if we did it ourselves. That is, we cannot say "this Reddit post being the most downvoted post in history illustrates that EA's position here was really really unpopular", since that would be WP:OR, but it probably is true, and we can and should rely on a secondary source to make that connection. I wouldn't trust something this particular site cited to Reddit because they provide no interpretation or analysis, they just repost stuff - that's why I don't think it's quite right to cite it as the source itself. But if something like the NYT or something does an article on a Reddit post, that's probably a sign that we should actually cover that post through such secondary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• blacklist It looks like they once aggregated content from Columbia but that encyclopedia no longer shows up in their entries (are these all now dead links?). Their recommended citations are incomplete, lacking year and edition and the content in some cases may just be a summary, not all the material in the work. Their terms of service claim copyright on all content and state "solely for your personal use". As a 'courtesy link', maybe if the underlying work is fully cited, but i suspect this is not how it is primary being used(what's a good way to check?) Can you actually link to a specific work? It looks like you only like to their topic overview, with a list of works that can apparently change. Can't be used as a source, as a link within the reference section isn't this most likely to confuse someone who actually wants to go find the source?—eric 15:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Blacklisting would seem political. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Its aggregated content is generally fine as a source. Just cite: eg.: Brennan, Carol. "Archer Alexander c. 1810–1879". In Smith, Jesse Carney (ed.). Notable Black American Men, Book II. Gale. ISBN 9780787664930. Retrieved December 7, 2019 – via Encyclopedia.com. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I want to cite "automobile rhymes with manchineel" "automobile". Oxford Dictionary of Rhymes. I didn't actually look in Oxford Dictionary of Rhymes. Is that 1st or 2nd edition? I can't link to the correct work, but get redirected to https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/technology/technology-terms-and-concepts/automobile and the entry I see is from The Gale Encyclopedia of Science with Oxford way down the list. And if they stop aggregating Oxford publications? How many citations are out there to Columbia Encyclopedia that just link to encyclopedia.com?—eric 18:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Does not matter if websites change that is why retrieval information is provided. For stuff you do not know, don't include it. Include in the cite what you do know, and every reader will still has more than enough information to trace the source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
      • And as found above archived versions can be found. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Sure see, eg. https://archive.org/web/ if someone is concerned about that automobile page changing then archive it: https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/technology/technology-terms-and-concepts/automobile#automobile (but do note, no source has to be online to be a reliable source). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)