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. |
Archive 320 | Archive 321 | Archive 322 | Archive 323 | Archive 324 | Archive 325 | → | Archive 330 |
Per Sun (2015), "When Mao told Xinhua to ‘take control of the earth’ and engage in international communication, his premise was clear: that the media were the propaganda tools of the CCP... In the 1990s, Jiang Zemin’s numerous external propaganda policy directives again re-affirmed the official line that Xinhua was the ‘mouth and throat of the Party, charged with the dual responsibility of both internal and external propaganda, the mission of both being to promote the CCP and Chinese government’s policies’." [1]
Per Brady (2015), "In early 2009, Beijing announced that it would invest ¥45 billion (roughly US$7.25 billion) into its main media outlets in order to strengthen its international news coverage and global presence. As part of this campaign, known as “big propaganda” (da waixuan), Xinhua News Service increased its number of overseas bureaus from 100 to 186. That same year, the Global Times (a popular tabloid with an international focus owned by People’s Daily) launched an English-language edition. CCTV International also began broadcasting in Arabic and Russian, and in 2010 rebranded itself as CCTV News." [2]
It appears that Xinhua, the Global Times, and CCTV International (aka CGTN) are all part of the same propaganda campaign that the CCP has used to increase Beijing’s global presence. Why is it that the Global Times and CCTV International/CGTN are now deprecated while Xinhua remains largely unchallenged?
Normchou ( talk) 19:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
China's industrial output further expands in Novemberis literally the current second to top story on the business page). In recent times it has been more roundly criticised ( this article from the Guardian is a good example. It is also hilarious) but as far as I know no one has characterized it as inaccurate. ~ El D. ( talk to me) 22:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
China's industrial output further expands in Novemberare almost always available via a primary source such as the National Bureau of Statistics of China's website. Normchou ( talk) 00:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Continuing from my remarks above, on domestic stories of China, Xinhua has always been the one praising the government - both Beijing and the locals - although it doesn't mean Xinhua's stories are all fake. Xinhua also rarely does investigative journalism, but its Chinese-languaged, civilian-targeting stories and those which are published on magazines operated by Xinhua can be critical to governments. On February 27, when China's economy started to recover from Covid and there has been few outbreaks outside China, Xinhua praised Shenzhen's economic recovery, but on the same day, another more liberal media National Business Daily saying Shenzhen was slower compared to other cities in recovering. Xinhua and other liberal media drawing opposite conclusions on the same matter is not new - it is something expected, and even encouraged by China's media censors.
Xinhua is the one who praises Beijing in the most traditional and North Korean-like way while passing Beijing's message to the world, and they also do some international coverages; China Daily is the one who focuses mostly on China's domestic affairs and rarely controversial; Global Times (English version) is the tabloid who yelling around; CGTN can be considered as the Chinese equivalent of RT, but CGTN spark far fewer contriversies and falshoods than RT and has fairly good coverages on Africa, while allowing mild criticism on Beijing. This is why it isn't fair to compare Xinhua to Russia's Sputnik, which its main purpose is to spread propaganda, but Xinhua isn't - however, the Global Times is. I'll probably talk about Xinhua's international coverages later. It is naive to assume all of these official media are tightly controlled by the CCP, and everything the media said is subject to their censorship. They need different media to serve different roles. Although, admittedly, I don't have much experience here on English Wikipedia, but just know what you are dealing with, use common sense and existing guidelines such as "Perennial sources," don't fall for obvious craps on China's human rights or Covid conspiracies, and I think Xinhua is perfectly fine. -- Techyan( Talk) 03:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
References
Ban NYT first because it has been awarded No. 1 in the fake news media list, presented by the president of its country of origin. Discrimination against Chinese is not justified by any sense before banning No. 1 fake news media. -- The Master ( talk) 13:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a Chinese Wikipedia user. I'm from Hong Kong, China.
I can't help but participate in the discussion. On the question of the reliability of Xinhua News Agency, as a Chinese national and Wiki user, I think I have a good say in this issue.
Everyone here may have some strange or even bad views on the media in our country. In this regard, I would like to tell everyone here that the Chinese media is not high compared with Western countries in terms of freedom of the press, but there is no doubt about authenticity and effectiveness. Xinhua News Agency has been an official media with a long history. Xinhua opened international affairs in 1940 and has been facing the public for 80 years. Even if the evaluation is mixed, not every news media can satisfy everyone. But its still existence can show that it has its own value.
Xinhua News Agency may be regarded by some as the government's propaganda media, but Xinhua, as the official media, bears the image of China, and the news and news released should be responsible for China's image. I think Xinhua has been able to release effective news.
So Xinhua News Agency is regarded by some people as the propaganda channel of the Chinese government. I can only say that everyone has their own views. But the news and news released by Xinhua News Agency are real and effective. Several Wikipedia users mentioned Xinhua's cooperation and praise with other internationally renowned media, so I don't mention it here. But it is enough to see that Xinhua News Agency is internationally recognizable and a reliable and effective source of use.
I can't represent anyone, but I also pay attention to the news and what happens around me. Edit entries on Chinese Wikipedia. We also need to provide reliable sources. I've always been happy to use Xinhua News Agency as my reference source. So at least I think it works.
(“抱歉,我只能用中文写这一篇回复。这一篇回复是机器翻译,如果有人能将此译为正确的英文版本、让读不懂中文的维基人能够看得懂的话,我将非常感谢。 ”)
(Machine translation,The specific meaning is subject to the Chinese version.Translation:
[8])
-
Wiok
TALK‧
Wikipedia-zh 15:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
It would also be helpful to see Chinese Wikipedians having a discussion again regarding this matter, since the last discussion was in 2014. Normchou 💬 23:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)由于《新华社》是中华人民共和国官方通讯社,其发表的政治类新闻需要审慎对待,尤其是涉及到与中国大陆相关的负面新闻更要谨慎。對於中華人民共和國的正面新聞或中性新聞,只要不是出於誇大或扭曲(變成正面新聞),新華社可以作為可靠來源。其转载或编译的国外新闻,应尽量用原始出处的新闻替代。
(Since Xinhua News Agency is the official news agency of the People's Republic of China, the political news it publishes needs to be treated with caution, especially when it comes to negative news related to mainland China. For positive or neutral news from the People's Republic of China, Xinhua can be a reliable source as long as it is not exaggerated or distorted (turned into positive news). For foreign news it reproduces or compiles, one should try to replace it with news from the original source.)
It should get the same treatment as RT (formerly Russia Today) at WP:RS/P: "There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation." -- Valjean ( talk) 16:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
anti-western sentimentsseems irrelevant to the discussion and seems, in my view, to amount to censorship of a political viewpoint. I mean, I agree that editors should approach Xinhua stories on issues where the Chinese government is a stakeholder with the view that is at least biased but can we not be accused of parroting "anti-eastern sentiments" from our government? To avoid this, we must listen to all the opinions from editors and assess the argument's validity per our own policies not simply discard them on grounds that we believe that an editor has "anti-western sentiments". I am sorry if I have sounded too harsh, and I agree with the general thrust of your post but I feel slightly uncomfortable with the general desire to flatly disregard The Master's arguments on here on the grounds that they are Chinese. ~ El D. ( talk to me) 18:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey, looking at the sources, I see that the Journal of Democracy is part of the National Endowment for Democracy. While I have no serious reason to doubt the reliability of the article you cite or the journals as a whole, I am somewhat concerned about the link. For context, here is a New York Times article about some of the shady stuff the NED does. [10] ~ El D. ( talk to me) 21:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Should be depreciated as per reports from The Guardian, Agence France-Presse, NYT, and from evidence of its reporting on Tibet and the Dalai Lama, also noted in these first rate RS. Reliability is directly contrary to being "effective". Furthermore, Xinhua's reports on the capitalist-model economy in Tibet and elsewhere in China cannot be assumed generally reliable either, since the fabrication of reports cannot be assumed to stop with economic reporting. Normchou, depreciation should be applied equally to CCTV, Global Times and to Xinhua. Andreas Philopater, to provide what was suggested: There are numerous examples that Xinhua "publishes false or fabricated information" during the 2008 Tibetan unrest and its aftermath, and continues to currently do the same.
Xinhua, which cited the Xinjiang region publicity department in its report,...and that China's public executions are not reported [20].
"The reincarnation of the Dalai Lama has to be endorsed by the central government, not by any other sides, including the Dalai Lama himself,” Zhu said, according to a March 11 report in the state-run Xinhua news agency.[21]
The whole point of pushing that kind of propaganda out is to preclude or preempt decisions that would go against the People’s Republic of China.. Pasdecomplot ( talk) 13:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC) (edited 11:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC))
Since the source review process lists several Russian sources as deprecated (e.g. RIA Novosti, TASS, RT), I find it curious that there are no similar Ukrainian sources so listed. In reviewing the products of UNIAN.ua, for example, there are instances of news reporting that are no different than those on the mentioned Russian news sites - other than they are from a differing point of view. Why are official Ukrainian media sources any more reliable or credible on matters of importance to Ukraine than are Russian ones? The deprecation of at least the listed Russian sites (without topical limitation) functionally amounts to Wikipedia censorship because it blankedly removes those sources from being acceptable as source citations. On the basis of Wikipedia policy relevant citation citing these source have been removed. In this way a limited number of Wikipedia editors have pronounced as pariah sources those with whose reporting it is politically acceptable to disagree. It would be better for the fundamental stated purposes of Wikipedia (free exchange of information) to allow free citation which would allow the readership to engage in a discussion of veracity and/or come to their own conclusions. Moryak ( talk) 20:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
The "About us" section says "Somali Dispatch is the first full fledged English website that addresses the unique information needs of the growing English speaking masses in the Diaspora. Established in 2019, the website currently receives thousands of visitors a day. It is independently run and can be accessed and contributed to from around the world." It hints at some connection to CKCU FM in Ottawa, Canada, but not much else in terms of credentials. The attributed author for all of the articles is one of two names: "Admin" or "Mohamed Adan" which suggests this is a website maintained by one or two people. It's currently being used to source Somali president Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed's kinship with Siad Barre, which isn't supported by any other sources that approach WP:RS (it's alluded to in a few partisan Medium articles, that's about it). OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Horse Eye's Back added a statement on the reputation of People's Armed Police in Special:Diff/989899561.
The statement is as follows: The People's Armed Police are both feared and mocked by the Chinese public.
It comes from an article from the Diplomat.
The author of the
Diplomat analysis/opinion piece in question, Bonnie Girard, stated that [i]n general, it is safe to say that the PAP is not well-tolerated by a majority of Chinese, who both fear the PAP’s right to make arbitrary arrests and mock its members for their often brutish, thuggish tactics
, implying that the PAP as a whole has the power to enforce law and make arrest. Furthermore, Girard does not provide evidence for this claim in the Diplomat article.
Previous publications states that [e]xcept the MPS-led active service troops within the PAP, such as the Border Defense, Firefighting, and Guard Corps, other PAP units do not have the power to impose sanctions (e.g., arrest and detain)
[1]: 230 , and that [t]here were law enforcement services that reported to the MPS: the Public Security Border Defense Force...; Public Security Firefighting Force...; and and Public Security Guards Force... The reforms addressed this problem in part by divesting the PAP of most law enforcement and economic functions
[2]: 8, 21
User:Horse Eye's Back stated that The author is in fact a professional and subject matter expert (Girard is widely published as a quick JSTOR check can confirm)
where au:("Bonnie Girard") on JSTOR and au:Bonnie Girard on WorldCat yields no result.
Girard's claim contradicts what the previous published sources known about the PAP and therefore exceptional. Does this source qualify as multiple high-quality sources required by WP:EXCEPTIONAL? - Mys_721tx ( talk) 03:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
References
I'm working on the Izaac Hindom article and I found out about the Tapol bulletin (you can search the whole collection in [25] here). As you can read in the article, the bulletin was published by a group of political prisoners based in London (Tapol itself means political prisoners in Indonesian) to monitor human rights issues for Indonesia. But what makes me doubt the reliability of the source is when I read this particular edition.
Tapol accuses Hindom of "Javanization" (you could read on page 6 of the bulletin) and cites Kompas, 26 October 1982 as their source. When I check Kompas, 26 October 1982, the title of the headline reads as "Transmigration in Irian Jaya not "Javanization"" (Transmigrasi di Irja Bukan "Jawanisasi"). Furthermore, they quote Hindom (a Papuan) as saying "This will give birth to a new generation of people without curly hair, sowing the seeds for greater beauty." (note that curly hair is the main characteristic of Papuans, so he's basically saying that Papuans are ugly) The bulletin also quoted Hindom stating Irian Jaya (Greater Irian) will soon become Irian Java, or Javanese Irian
. However, a
Tempo
source noted that this was only a joke.
Aside from the controversial statements, Tapol is frequently cited by journals, such as this and this.
Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ( marhata) 15:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Is
this raw data an acceptable reference for the date of birth of living people? It seems to fail
WP:DOB in that it's not widely published by reliable sources
(is raw data really a reliable source?). At least one entry on the list is incorrect, see
Talk:Paul Maskey#Birthday.
FDW777 (
talk) 19:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Are these Irish newspapers reliable references at John Brady (Sinn Féin politician) ( Irish Times article and Irish Examiner article) and Claire Kerrane ( Irish Times article and Irish Examiner article)? Thank you. FDW777 ( talk) 17:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The Daily Kos has only been discussed three times. In 2015, there was consensus that it was unreliable for its election predictions. Despite this, its predictions are currently being used in articles on house races both this election and last election. Is there still consensus that it is unreliable for these? Username 6892 19:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
It's this edit [27] that concerns me (I've reverted it twice). Its article, Monsey Hanukkah stabbing also only has Cuomo as a source. In October 2019 we had an RfC at Talk:List of terrorist incidents [28] that determined that list entries should only be included if "The incident is notable (has a stand-alone article), and (2) the consensus of WP:RSes describe the incident as "terrorism"." I guess as Terrorism in the United States albeit being a standalone list is technically not covered by the RfC, the principal still seems sensible. It's also relevant that the perpetrator " had a long history of serious mental illness and had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia the year before the attack. He was charged in state court with five counts of attempted murder and one count of first-degree burglary, and in federal court on federal hate crime charges. A federal judge ruled him incompetent to stand trial on the federal charges." He is now in a mental facility. I'm not convinced that any act by such a person can be classified as terrorism, and I'll also note that by calling this terrorism we are calling him a terrorist, which looks to me like a BLP violation. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Is the Fryderyk Chopin Institute reliable for claims about pianists? Its page on Fou Ts'ong refers to an album called The Pianistic Art of Fou Ts'ong – which apparently has quite complimentary things to say about Fou in its liner notes – which I cannot verify the existence of in other reliable sources, at WorldCat, or at Discogs. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 03:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Can this [33] be used in golf course articles as to either the existence of a course or its ranking. An administrator @ Billinghurst: has been removing it out of Beaconsfield Golf Club with the following explanations- 'site non-authoritative, requires accepting cookies,' 'these were spammed which was why they were removed', and 're-read the history, the original author didn't add the spam; look at who did and all the articles that they added the spam'. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
In last few years, some of the following people have come up with original research, theories - with widespread corraboration and proofs about India / Indic / Vedic civilization going back a few thousand years. This point of view aligns very well with the local knowledge and belief system as well, and when scientific proofs are provided, it helps convert "myth" into the proper history.
There are plenty of videos, articles, books - wherein these research have been collated. Some of them are cited here. Recently, I added a bit of information in the Mahabharata page based on this research. The edit was reverted and it was quoted that the author of the book (Nilesh Oak) is a chemical engineer and not an academic.
I would like to ask / understand - on what basis does a piece of information become acceptable in wikipedia ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGyjvyXEKdc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bsyi4zYHP0
https://sangamtalks.org/dr-raj-vedam/
https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/9385485016/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i6
Isnt this enough to prove that the so called "mainstream" indian history need to be revisited ? Raghav ( talk)
I'm really not an expert here - but I feel like the [chicagotribune.com Chicago Tribune] should definitely make the list? It's a reliable and widely circulated newspaper in the United States. I found it cited in over 500 articles. OfficerCow ( talk) 22:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
These sources are all used on the Apple Inc. article as well as other apple related articles such as Beddit. There hasn't really been any discussion on these source's reliablity on RSN apart from this short post and thread, which is why I came here to ask what your guys' thoughts are on these sources and their reliability. X-Editor ( talk) 01:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
This source has been used on the listed article and on several others related to the technology being discussed, ie hot air engines and several inventors. This website has a single author who cites difficult-to-verify sources that all appear to have been published earlier than 1900. In the instance cited above, the entire subsection has only that one website for 12 references, and places where several more would have been appropriate under different circumstances.
My biggest problem with this is the website author seems to have put his personal bias on the presentation of facts and their importance to the scientific community. Also, I haven't been able to confirm that Isaac Woerlen, whose only point of contact is through LinkedIn, has the 'chops' to be relied upon so heavily. Does he have a degree relative to the subject matter?
I'm inclined to believe that rather than this author being cited, an editor might chase down his sources and use them. — Myk Streja (beep) 21:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
It's used at Eton College controversies to source the statement "Lord Bellingham wrote to the Times to say that Old Etonians would be withholding over £2 million in donations to the College as long as Henderson remained in post because of his 'woeful handling of this issue'" [38] (yes, that's the link, nothing to do with Lord Bellingham or Eton, this must be what was intended [39]). Doug Weller talk 15:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Is Designers & Dragons [40] (various editions) an RS for (a) general information, (b) BLPs about game designers, (c) non-BLP information about games? Chetsford ( talk) 04:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
the book's cover page lists only an author, no editor, indicating it is all but WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Please look on the second page of the "free sample" version you linked to, which provides the information you ask for - and more. Perhaps retract the misinformation you accidentally provided? Newimpartial ( talk) 03:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Generally reliable as a source for facts on games and game companies. Not recommended for use in biographies of living people or to support clearly controversial statements.In other words, the previous consensus was Yes to the current questions A and C and No to B. However, I do not see any policy-compliant objection presented in that discussion to the use of Designers & Dragons for non-controversial BLP information, so I would like to see the RSN finding corrected on that point.
the book's cover page lists only an author, no editor, indicating it is all but WP:SELFPUBLISHED. I do not know what publication Chetsford is looking at, but the four-volume version in my possession (ISBNs 978-1-61317-075-5, 978-1-61317-081-6, 978-61317-084-7 and 978-61317-087-8) credits in each case Shannon Appelcline as the author, John Adams as the editor, Evil Hat Productions as the publisher and 2014 as the copyright date (along with 9 other Evil Hat staff involved in the publication). Definitely not self-published, and independent except when dealing with Evil Hat Productions itself. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmp21btQMtI&list=UUTXmPRRlEkGaQNSsuExg43A
A page on "Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams" (FIRST) was rapidly deleted. In refusing a request to undelete the page Muboshgu wrote "... This does not necessarily mean a suitable article on this topic cannot be created. If it is a notable topic, e.g., multiple reliable, secondary, published sources that are entirely independent of the subject have written about it in substantive detail (not just mere mentions), then a neutrally written article may be possible. ..."
There are references to FIRST that go beyond mere mentions in The Baltimore Sun [1] and The Wall Street Journal [2]. As far as I can see these are both reliable sources. However if two sources is not sufficient to establish notability, then I need advice on the following:
networkworld has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is networkworld a reliable source?
bluekaizen has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is bluekaizen a reliable source?
elvocero has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is elvocero a reliable source?
internethealthreport has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is internethealthreport a reliable source?
tradearabia has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is tradearabia a reliable source?
I think the above are reliable sources but would appreciate feedback before proceeding. Tango Mike Bravo ( talk) 15:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Is this Telegraph India article a reliable source to use in this BLP? It's been used heavily in the article. Also, I think that page needs protection, but I'm not sure what kind or even if I'll be able to justify it again (I've successfully had it protected before), it'd be nice if someone looked into that. Thanks in advance. Please ping when you reply Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 14:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The issue at hand is to determine the reliability of a Washington Post newspaper article and, by association, a sentence, "Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation", within the article.
Your feedback about <The reliability of an article in the Washington Post has been questioned> would be appreciated on this talk page discussion where the disagreement about the reliability of the Washington Post article and its contained sentence was initiated.
I have made a post to the WP:VERIFY page requesting that the "policy" concerning "Newspaper and magazine blogs" WP:NEWSBLOG be revised as it is too vague to be useful in resolving the issue concerning the reliability of the Washington Post newspaper article.
Although the WP:NEWSBLOG policy is not to be resolved at "Reliable Sources", here is some background concerning the difficulty that prompts my request.
Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.
Here are the particulars concerning my "Reliability" dilemma:
Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation.
Please help me by determining the reliability of this article so I can end, one way or another, the argument which PackMecEng continues to prolong.
Osomite hablemos 06:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, hope you're doing well. I've been directed here from the Teahouse. My question is about WP:RS but also about WP:RSE. I'll just copy my post from there.
At WP:RS, it says:
Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
On the other hand, at WP:RSE, it says:
In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject.
The Baháʼí Faith is a small-to-medium-sized religion and there are some academic works on it, but a far greater number of articles written by Baháʼís in Baháʼí journals that aren't peer-reviewed by non-Baháʼí academics. For example, at Baháʼí Faith and science#Existence of ether, there is a quote from the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal about how the Baháʼí scriptures are compatible with modern physics. Would mainstream physicists agree? We don't know because they haven't written about it. Based on the above quote from WP:RS, I would think the material should be removed. On the other hand based on the note from WP:RSE, I would think it is okay to include. What should I do?
In 2018, Sludge magazine ran an article [43] about the video Douglas Murray (author) made for Prager University "The Suicide of Europe", which was published on PragerU's website and on YouTube. Note that the video has 7 million plus videos on PragerU's website and is, by a considerable margin, the most-viewed video when you type "Douglas Murray" into YoutTube's search bar. The Sludge article was highly critical of the video, saying, among other things, that its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation' "evokes the common white nationalist trope of 'white genocide'" says that Murray "energizes white nationalists" and takes issue with some of the specific claims made in the video. Frankly, I believe that this source is being repeatedly removed from Murray's wiki page for ideological rather than evidentiary reasons. Other sources from Middle East Eye, Southern Poverty Law Center and Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, [44] which aims to document anti-Muslim sentiment, were repeatedly removed from Murray's page with scant justification as well. I've engaged in discussions on Murray's talk page but they've proved fairly fruitless.
A few reasons why I think the Sludge article is a reliable source:
Sludge has been addressed in these forums before, in 2018. [50] However, Sludge is now two years old and for the reasons listed, I think it deserves to be treated as a fairly reliable source - and I am just treating as a source of opinion, not looking to speak in Wikipedia's voice. Noteduck ( talk) 06:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Hemiauchenia: I disagree with the "two-man band" assessment. Sludge may only have two paid employees but they certainly have other contributors - eg see [51] See also that they've had other reporters at different times - under the heading "The Sludge team" [52]. Furthermore, I don't believe they're anything like self-published when they mention that they receive funding from a 501(c)3 non-profit organization called the Participatory Politics Foundation - see again [53] I think if Sludge is to be reject as an unreliable source, it has quite regrettable implications for any small-scale journalism project Noteduck ( talk) 10:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Given that Sludge has only been around for two years it's not surprising that there have not been many discussions regarding its veracity as a source. I did find this [54] which lists Sludge as having a "left-wing bias" but gives it a higher "factual reporting" rating than, say, The Guardian, so I'm not sure what we can infer from that. However, we can conclude that:
IMO, Sludge seems small-scale but fairly intellectually rigorous and reliable. Noteduck ( talk) 11:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a source that was used on the page of conservative commentator Douglas Murray.
Note that it's listed under Opinion>Human Rights. Observe that Nafeez Ahmed is a prolific and respected academic, journalist and published author who has written for The Guardian, VICE, The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald etc and also has academic publications to his name, eg [81] and quite a few books. [82] See on his website [83] and [84]
Two passages in the article for Douglas Murray quoted Ahmed's article in order to make the following points:
Both these claims were derived from the passage in the Ahmed article which read:
"I'm not sure Murray’s screed against the free speech of those asking questions about the intelligence services is ironic given that in a separate Wall Street Journal comment, he laments that the attacks in Paris and Copenhagen prove the West is losing the war on “free speech” being waged by Islamists. But Murray’s concerns about free speech are really just a ploy for far-right entryism."
It has repeatedly been argued that references to Ahmed's article should not be used on the basis it is not a RS, undue weight, appealing to emotion etc. It's true that the Ahmed article is an opinion piece, but note that the excerpts are never phrased in Wiki's voice and that the article merely notes that Murray "has been described" as far right according to Ahmed. This comes amidst an unfortunate context of vandalism and tendentious editing on Murray's page. It's the academic consensus that Murray's views can best be described as far-right, alt-right, Islamophobic, white nationalist or some combination thereof [85] [86] [87] [88], so the point Ahmed is making is hardly novel.
Any help would be appreciated! Does this belong on Murray's page or not? Noteduck ( talk) 01:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Forum Shopping Noteduck, this exact source is being discussed just up the page [ [89]]. Springee ( talk) 04:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The following book is written by William S. Hatcher, a mathematician (by training) who served on National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada (1983–91). The book is published by Baha'i Publishing Trust. Is it a reliable source on the history of Baha'i Faith? Taha ( talk) 17:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hatcher, W.S.; Martin, J.D. (2002). The Bahá'í Faith: The Emerging Global Religion. Baha'i Publishing. ISBN 978-1-931847-06-3. Retrieved 2021-01-02.
Policies are pretty clear that it's a reliable source and can be used in context even if it has bias. WP:BIASED:
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.
Also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It depends what the book is sourcing. If you're looking for a way to throw out Hatcher and not use it because it carries a Baha'i bias, someone could argue that Denis MacEoin and Juan Cole are not neutral and should not be used because they are clearly biased against Baha'is based on personal conflicts. Even more so with Iranian government sources that spread intentional disinformation. If the assertion being referenced by Taherzadeh is contested in other reliable sources, then sometimes you can mention the sources and the differences in sources. WP:WIKIVOICE:
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
just likeWell, no, obviously not "just like" -- adherents of a religion have a very particular problem serving as commentators on their own religion that is not similar to any problems that might be held by anyone else (except maybe apostates). -- JBL ( talk) 00:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't expect to be back here quite so soon, but just ran into it being used for this edit [90] in Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory. I removed it as clearly not a reliable source for that edit. It's used in other articles. [91]. Other than for itself, I can't think of any reason to use it at all. Here's a link to the journal. [92] Doug Weller talk 07:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Recently on Please Please Me (song) I attempted to include relevant information about the spelling "Beattles" being on the 17 January 1964 and 24 January 1964 WLS Silver Dollar Surveys. However, Sundayclose objected to sources such as oldiesloon or www.las-solanas.com as being "self-published", even though oldiesloon is currently referenced just a few sentences earlier, even in the very same article and in many other articles, and without providing any alternative source.
I see no evidence that either source is "self-published". For example, I see no means by which anyone could contribute to either site, at least in any direct sense. After reading suggested articles that supposedly deal with such things, I am now more confused than I have ever been.
Clearly the surveys exist. I have a copy of each. The problem seems to be finding a source for such surveys without running afoul of a myriad of possible objections from Wikipedia editors. At this point I have no idea who to ask about what.
Any ideas come to mind? 98.149.97.245 ( talk) 22:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
"Regardless of the reliability of the source, this seems like a minor point that is only peripherally related to the subject of the article."
The point is that the spelling "Beattles" on the WLS Silver Dollar Surveys carried over to "I Want To Hold Your Hand", even after the spelling had been corrected on the record label for "Please Please Me".
From Sundayclose to me:
"I assume you mean these photos: http://www.las-solanas.com/surveys/WLS/WLS_1964-01-17_1.jpg [and http://www.las-solanas.com/surveys/WLS/WLS_1964-01-24_1.jpg] . On this you need more than my opinion as I am not sure whether the links to the photos would be considered reliable since the source on which they are posted is not reliable. It's certainly better than just linking the website's transcription of the surveys.
"Post the links at WP:RSN and see what others think.
"You have to be patient; you're not going to get a lot of comments quickly. But if you get some support over the next couple of weeks and no serious opposition, that would be good enough for me. If you don't get much response there after a couple of weeks, another option later is a WP:RFC at Talk:Please Please Me (song). That probably will generate some attention. By the way, another editor pointed out a completely different issue: whether the misspelling in the surveys is notable enough to be included in a discussion of the misspelling by Vee-Jay. I don't have an opinion either way on that." Sundayclose (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Your thoughts? 98.149.97.245 ( talk) 23:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I recommended that Crux (online newspaper) be added a reliable source, since I could not find any mention of it here. https://cruxnow.com/ While editorially it is aligned with the Catholic Church, have a viewpoint does not make a source unreliable and most news items seem largely free of a very biased pov. They are regularly cited by The New York Times and Washington Post for information on the church and does not have a record of a failed fact-check, at least from what I have seen. What do people think? 3Kingdoms ( talk) 23:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Is Media Watch (TV series) [115] a reliable source? Basically, this is a weekly Australian TV series produced by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation which aims to highlight errors, hypocrisy and conflicts of interests in the Australian media. According to the blurb on the ABC website:
Media Watch is Australia's leading forum for media analysis and critique.
Since 1989 Media Watch has been exposing conflicts of interest, journalistic deceit, misrepresentation, manipulation and plagiarism.
Media Watch turns the spotlight onto those who 'make the news': the reporters, the online editors, producers, camera operators and photographers. We also keep an eye on those who try to manipulate the media: the PR consultants, media agencies, spin-doctors, lobbyists and social influencers.
It's hosted by Paul Barry, who is quite an acclaimed journalist, and has an extensive staff listed including Barry as presenter in additions to a story editor and two additional journalists [116]. It's well-known and well-respected in Australia and I can't think of any times when it has published a story found to be incorrect or retracted a story (correct me if I'm wrong). That said, given that its job is attacking the news media it frequently runs into criticism or threats of lawsuits, [117] but I can't think of one that ever led to any finding against the program. Here's Media Watch mentioned in the parliamentary record [118] It has made it into academic journals as well - here's a reference to a hoax it successfully pulled on the Australia media in 2010 [119]
The specific point I want to make is quite minor. I want to make a point on the page of The Australian's Greg Sheridan. There's a paragraph about Sheridan's claim that he "never saw racism in the USA", to which I want to add something like "the ABC's Media Watch criticized Sheridan's assertion on the basis that he lacked lived experience of racial discrimination". Clink this link for the Media Watch story I want to use, which is about BLM and the lack of diversity in Australian media [120] Sheridan's claim was also criticized in The Guardian here [121]
RS? Thanks Wikipedians! Noteduck ( talk) 01:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I was surprised to discover a book by famed Holocaust denier David Irving among the sources of Blondi, (one of) Hitler's last dog(s).The cited claim is that Hitler bought a different German shepherd to keep Blondi company and that her name was Bella. Is this sort of thing allowed? GPinkerton ( talk) 03:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This is (or was) a publisher that produced books consisting of Wikipedia articles. (Previous discussions: Archive 120 and Archive 97.)
From Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents:
Despite all MobileReference citations being removed some years ago, we now have a small number re-introduced, which I plan to remove, depending on the feedback received here.
They may have produced books source through other means, or possibly combining Wikipedia articles with other freely available sources. One such example was cited in Museum Lane:
Museum Lane runs between two of London's leading museums in South Kensington, namely the Science Museum to the north and the Natural History Museum (formerly the Geological Museum) to the south. [1]
This source claims to include opening times, as such probably incorporates information from Google Maps.
It seems difficult, if not impossible, to gauge the reliability of all the MobileReference books individually. Nonetheless it seems to me reasonable that, sans a reason to make an exception, we should add MobleReference to the list of perennial sources as unreliable.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough 07:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC).
Is Pando a reliable source? It comes up a fair bit in BLP deletion discussions, and taking a look at it, they certainly hold themselves out as a news site. But it's a tiny bit unlike that, somewhat more like a blog. The contributors are often professional journalists [122] [123], but sometimes podcast hosts [124], non-journalists [125], academics [126], and... people contributing apparently promotional pseudo-articles [127] and opinion pieces from activists [128]. Amiee Pearcy appears to be the only staff editor [129] and I'm slightly concerned this may be more like her blog with guest contributors than a news organization. Sometimes they repost random medium articles from contributors whose qualifications they do not state [130]. It looks like it might be a very small operation, and in 2019 it appears its entire editorial staff changed due to the sale of the site [131]. In the founding statement, the founder calls it a blog [132]. What do we think about the following questions?
FalconK ( talk) 00:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
While Rollcall.com may be a reliable source for some things, it's page ranking the wealth of the 115th United States Congress at the beginning of 2018 [133] (shown as 2021 in Portman's article) says:
"While these reports open a window into the financial position of every member, they are far from comprehensive or exact. Members need only report their financial positions in 11 broad ranges of value, starting with less than $1,000 and maxing out at $50 million or more. And they do not need to report the values of their principal residences or their contents, the biggest assets for most Americans. Liabilities open during any part of 2016 are also counted. What’s more, the policing of the accuracy of these reports appears to be spotty. The consequence for making an obvious mistake or omission is generally a letter from the clerk of the House or the Senate Ethics Committee encouraging an amended filing." Doug Weller talk 07:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
according to Roll Call's ranking of the wealth of congresspeople, which relies on disclosure reports filed by members of Congress …etc. In general, I've always seen Roll Call as an excellent source for US federal politics, and this article confirms that prior as opposed to calling it into question. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 15:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
In Illinois, conservative operative Dan Proft has set up various political publications that take on the style and format of newspapers, obstinately to hide their true purpose as political advertisements. The main umbrella for these publications is Local Government Information Services which as of writing includes
|
|
|
As documented in this article from the The State Journal-Register, the political advertisements run negative content about Democratic candidates ("Democrat X eats babies") giving no right of response to those candidates while running vague upbeat stories about Republican candidates ("Republican Y wants to help everyone") that lift content word for word from said Republican's promotional materials. Illinois Playbook, a publication of Politico has a summary of the politicized coverage coming from the various publications. An example of this being used against a Republican that Proft's organization did not prefer can be found here.
The reason I raise this issue Rich Miller, a longtime journalist covering the Illinois General Assembly, estimated in a 2018 article published in the The News-Gazette that 90% of the articles about the 2018 Illinois House of Representatives election and the 2018 Illinois Senate election were from one of the political publications. I believe this creates the risk of such politicized information being used in articles about Illinois elections and in the biographies of Illinois elected officials.
The publications include some non-political content that appears to be pulled from public sources and then written by algorithms such as "Meeting of Cityville City Council to Occur on Smarch 32nd" or "Bill Smith Pulled 4 Democratic Ballots In 5 Cycles". I believe I may have used such a publication in the past for party affiliations of township officials. I have no reason to believe that the information I used was wrong. However, considering the amount of political advertisements versus apolitical content, I believe we should have some caveats on how these publications can be used on Wikipedia.
Thoughts on this would be appreciated.-- Mpen320 ( talk) 03:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC) (forgot to sign)
A concern has been raised about the quality of sources at Coat of arms of The Catholic University of America, an article I created yesterday. Before I did, I consulted the four similar articles and thought the sourcing here was at least as good as in those:
When the CUA article was new page patrolled the reviewer didn't flag it, but I would appreciate another review. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 21:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Curious to know what others think about the reliability of How Stuff Works. They don't appear on WP:RSP at all as of Dec 2020. Their website has a section on reliability where they talk about their approach, their commitment to transparency, awards they've received, and writer selection process. [1] They also stress that they're not a primary source, but my understanding is that secondary sources are acceptable on Wikipedia, as long as they're not the topic of a page. I'm on the fence on this one, and would love to know what other, more experienced editors think. Mozby ( talk) 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
References
professionally writen[140], it is used as a source by The Independent [141], it was a New York Times podcast pick [142]. Is that still too superficial? ~ El D. ( talk to me) 14:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The US State Department released a report in August 2020, titled Pillars of Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem, which documented six state-sponsored disinformation / fake news sites. There is some overlap with the EU's anti-disinformation East Stratcom Task Force's sites that have already been blacklisted here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#State-sponsored_fake_news_sites. The six sites named in the State Department report are:
Would propose that these four sites be added to the spamblocked sites from the December 2019 RfC here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#RfC:_Deprecation_of_fake_news_/_disinformation_sites.
Suppose that another RfC would be required for this? - Amigao ( talk) 22:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This popscience magazine publishes interviews, press releases, etc. It has often been used on WP to promote WP:FRINGE claims about UFOs and various people or their works. Since RSN archives about it are limited, I thought it'd be a good time to discuss it. It's been mentioned at WP:FTN a few times like here, here, here and more recently here. It's now even at WP:ANI here. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 15:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
When Gawker is the only source for a piece of information, the information would likely constitute undue weight, etc. If the concern about how seriously a publication should be taken is more general than a single article, as is the case here, surely it's all part of the same discussion. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
China's CCTV is their state-run TV channel, and they have many channels. Unlike CGTN, which often features VOA-like or RFA-like garbage, CCTV actually has very good content on their other channels other than #1 (I've watched both a lot recently). Xinwen Lianbo, their famous news program, has more a more propaganda-esque tone, especially when reporting on controversial issues (it's my least favourite CCTV channel for this reason, and I even jokingly nicknamed all the CCTV news reporters "陈先生" (Mr. Chen) and "李小姐" (Miss Li) regardless of their name, because they sound all the same and say the same things over and over), and sometimes their reporting on subjects such as Taiwan or the South China Sea may be questionable and should be avoided in citations. However, it is a reliable source for citing the official opinion of the PRC and the CCP, and the reporting on non-controversial mainland news is usually reliable. In CCTV-1's other programs, they are usually "meh", and it sometimes gets annoying when they over-sensationalize something and say, for example, when the aforementioned "陈先生" says, "哇!这颗螺丝显示出来“中国速度”!真先进啊!" (that was obviously an exaggerated joke, but you get the idea) However, other channels, such as CCTV 9, has great, factual documentaries on Chinese history (this is my favourite so far, it's on the Chengdu-Kunming railway, and there's no annoying 陈先生和李小姐), and CCTV 10 has a lot of good technology-related documentaries too. Is it safe to cite CCTV, provided that the subject of the news report or documentary is non-controversial and well-presented? Félix An ( talk) 00:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Is BET considered a reliable source?
Neither Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources nor Media Bias/Fact Check mention this website. I'd like to think it's reliable given that it's owned by a major media company, but the fact that some of its articles are heavily sensationalized makes me think otherwise. Ixfd64 ( talk) 23:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks trade, many articles rely on historical information from news outlets and contextual sources. Though, more recently I've been interested in finding out the reliability of sources, and from people who claim to be "experts in the field". One of these sources would be from Bill Androckitis Jr. who runs the blog, Touring Central Florida, and has been quoted by the Tampa Bay Business Journal as being one of these amusement park experts 1 2. The main question I wish to pose here relies on individual roller coaster articles (i.e. Time Traveler (roller coaster), Iron Gwazi, VelociCoaster) that seek historical information and opinions based on their respective reception sections.
For one, how can I determine definitively if these people are indeed "leading experts in the field"? Does a mention in a newspaper or journal define such expertise? On another point, if their expertise is reliable, can their personal website(s) be used towards providing any relevant information to historical reporting on an attraction and/or be sufficient sources for opinions related to the reception cascaded upon reviewing a new attraction? All the best, Adog ( Talk・ Cont) 04:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 320 | Archive 321 | Archive 322 | Archive 323 | Archive 324 | Archive 325 | → | Archive 330 |
Per Sun (2015), "When Mao told Xinhua to ‘take control of the earth’ and engage in international communication, his premise was clear: that the media were the propaganda tools of the CCP... In the 1990s, Jiang Zemin’s numerous external propaganda policy directives again re-affirmed the official line that Xinhua was the ‘mouth and throat of the Party, charged with the dual responsibility of both internal and external propaganda, the mission of both being to promote the CCP and Chinese government’s policies’." [1]
Per Brady (2015), "In early 2009, Beijing announced that it would invest ¥45 billion (roughly US$7.25 billion) into its main media outlets in order to strengthen its international news coverage and global presence. As part of this campaign, known as “big propaganda” (da waixuan), Xinhua News Service increased its number of overseas bureaus from 100 to 186. That same year, the Global Times (a popular tabloid with an international focus owned by People’s Daily) launched an English-language edition. CCTV International also began broadcasting in Arabic and Russian, and in 2010 rebranded itself as CCTV News." [2]
It appears that Xinhua, the Global Times, and CCTV International (aka CGTN) are all part of the same propaganda campaign that the CCP has used to increase Beijing’s global presence. Why is it that the Global Times and CCTV International/CGTN are now deprecated while Xinhua remains largely unchallenged?
Normchou ( talk) 19:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
China's industrial output further expands in Novemberis literally the current second to top story on the business page). In recent times it has been more roundly criticised ( this article from the Guardian is a good example. It is also hilarious) but as far as I know no one has characterized it as inaccurate. ~ El D. ( talk to me) 22:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
China's industrial output further expands in Novemberare almost always available via a primary source such as the National Bureau of Statistics of China's website. Normchou ( talk) 00:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Continuing from my remarks above, on domestic stories of China, Xinhua has always been the one praising the government - both Beijing and the locals - although it doesn't mean Xinhua's stories are all fake. Xinhua also rarely does investigative journalism, but its Chinese-languaged, civilian-targeting stories and those which are published on magazines operated by Xinhua can be critical to governments. On February 27, when China's economy started to recover from Covid and there has been few outbreaks outside China, Xinhua praised Shenzhen's economic recovery, but on the same day, another more liberal media National Business Daily saying Shenzhen was slower compared to other cities in recovering. Xinhua and other liberal media drawing opposite conclusions on the same matter is not new - it is something expected, and even encouraged by China's media censors.
Xinhua is the one who praises Beijing in the most traditional and North Korean-like way while passing Beijing's message to the world, and they also do some international coverages; China Daily is the one who focuses mostly on China's domestic affairs and rarely controversial; Global Times (English version) is the tabloid who yelling around; CGTN can be considered as the Chinese equivalent of RT, but CGTN spark far fewer contriversies and falshoods than RT and has fairly good coverages on Africa, while allowing mild criticism on Beijing. This is why it isn't fair to compare Xinhua to Russia's Sputnik, which its main purpose is to spread propaganda, but Xinhua isn't - however, the Global Times is. I'll probably talk about Xinhua's international coverages later. It is naive to assume all of these official media are tightly controlled by the CCP, and everything the media said is subject to their censorship. They need different media to serve different roles. Although, admittedly, I don't have much experience here on English Wikipedia, but just know what you are dealing with, use common sense and existing guidelines such as "Perennial sources," don't fall for obvious craps on China's human rights or Covid conspiracies, and I think Xinhua is perfectly fine. -- Techyan( Talk) 03:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
References
Ban NYT first because it has been awarded No. 1 in the fake news media list, presented by the president of its country of origin. Discrimination against Chinese is not justified by any sense before banning No. 1 fake news media. -- The Master ( talk) 13:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a Chinese Wikipedia user. I'm from Hong Kong, China.
I can't help but participate in the discussion. On the question of the reliability of Xinhua News Agency, as a Chinese national and Wiki user, I think I have a good say in this issue.
Everyone here may have some strange or even bad views on the media in our country. In this regard, I would like to tell everyone here that the Chinese media is not high compared with Western countries in terms of freedom of the press, but there is no doubt about authenticity and effectiveness. Xinhua News Agency has been an official media with a long history. Xinhua opened international affairs in 1940 and has been facing the public for 80 years. Even if the evaluation is mixed, not every news media can satisfy everyone. But its still existence can show that it has its own value.
Xinhua News Agency may be regarded by some as the government's propaganda media, but Xinhua, as the official media, bears the image of China, and the news and news released should be responsible for China's image. I think Xinhua has been able to release effective news.
So Xinhua News Agency is regarded by some people as the propaganda channel of the Chinese government. I can only say that everyone has their own views. But the news and news released by Xinhua News Agency are real and effective. Several Wikipedia users mentioned Xinhua's cooperation and praise with other internationally renowned media, so I don't mention it here. But it is enough to see that Xinhua News Agency is internationally recognizable and a reliable and effective source of use.
I can't represent anyone, but I also pay attention to the news and what happens around me. Edit entries on Chinese Wikipedia. We also need to provide reliable sources. I've always been happy to use Xinhua News Agency as my reference source. So at least I think it works.
(“抱歉,我只能用中文写这一篇回复。这一篇回复是机器翻译,如果有人能将此译为正确的英文版本、让读不懂中文的维基人能够看得懂的话,我将非常感谢。 ”)
(Machine translation,The specific meaning is subject to the Chinese version.Translation:
[8])
-
Wiok
TALK‧
Wikipedia-zh 15:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
It would also be helpful to see Chinese Wikipedians having a discussion again regarding this matter, since the last discussion was in 2014. Normchou 💬 23:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)由于《新华社》是中华人民共和国官方通讯社,其发表的政治类新闻需要审慎对待,尤其是涉及到与中国大陆相关的负面新闻更要谨慎。對於中華人民共和國的正面新聞或中性新聞,只要不是出於誇大或扭曲(變成正面新聞),新華社可以作為可靠來源。其转载或编译的国外新闻,应尽量用原始出处的新闻替代。
(Since Xinhua News Agency is the official news agency of the People's Republic of China, the political news it publishes needs to be treated with caution, especially when it comes to negative news related to mainland China. For positive or neutral news from the People's Republic of China, Xinhua can be a reliable source as long as it is not exaggerated or distorted (turned into positive news). For foreign news it reproduces or compiles, one should try to replace it with news from the original source.)
It should get the same treatment as RT (formerly Russia Today) at WP:RS/P: "There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation." -- Valjean ( talk) 16:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
anti-western sentimentsseems irrelevant to the discussion and seems, in my view, to amount to censorship of a political viewpoint. I mean, I agree that editors should approach Xinhua stories on issues where the Chinese government is a stakeholder with the view that is at least biased but can we not be accused of parroting "anti-eastern sentiments" from our government? To avoid this, we must listen to all the opinions from editors and assess the argument's validity per our own policies not simply discard them on grounds that we believe that an editor has "anti-western sentiments". I am sorry if I have sounded too harsh, and I agree with the general thrust of your post but I feel slightly uncomfortable with the general desire to flatly disregard The Master's arguments on here on the grounds that they are Chinese. ~ El D. ( talk to me) 18:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey, looking at the sources, I see that the Journal of Democracy is part of the National Endowment for Democracy. While I have no serious reason to doubt the reliability of the article you cite or the journals as a whole, I am somewhat concerned about the link. For context, here is a New York Times article about some of the shady stuff the NED does. [10] ~ El D. ( talk to me) 21:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Should be depreciated as per reports from The Guardian, Agence France-Presse, NYT, and from evidence of its reporting on Tibet and the Dalai Lama, also noted in these first rate RS. Reliability is directly contrary to being "effective". Furthermore, Xinhua's reports on the capitalist-model economy in Tibet and elsewhere in China cannot be assumed generally reliable either, since the fabrication of reports cannot be assumed to stop with economic reporting. Normchou, depreciation should be applied equally to CCTV, Global Times and to Xinhua. Andreas Philopater, to provide what was suggested: There are numerous examples that Xinhua "publishes false or fabricated information" during the 2008 Tibetan unrest and its aftermath, and continues to currently do the same.
Xinhua, which cited the Xinjiang region publicity department in its report,...and that China's public executions are not reported [20].
"The reincarnation of the Dalai Lama has to be endorsed by the central government, not by any other sides, including the Dalai Lama himself,” Zhu said, according to a March 11 report in the state-run Xinhua news agency.[21]
The whole point of pushing that kind of propaganda out is to preclude or preempt decisions that would go against the People’s Republic of China.. Pasdecomplot ( talk) 13:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC) (edited 11:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC))
Since the source review process lists several Russian sources as deprecated (e.g. RIA Novosti, TASS, RT), I find it curious that there are no similar Ukrainian sources so listed. In reviewing the products of UNIAN.ua, for example, there are instances of news reporting that are no different than those on the mentioned Russian news sites - other than they are from a differing point of view. Why are official Ukrainian media sources any more reliable or credible on matters of importance to Ukraine than are Russian ones? The deprecation of at least the listed Russian sites (without topical limitation) functionally amounts to Wikipedia censorship because it blankedly removes those sources from being acceptable as source citations. On the basis of Wikipedia policy relevant citation citing these source have been removed. In this way a limited number of Wikipedia editors have pronounced as pariah sources those with whose reporting it is politically acceptable to disagree. It would be better for the fundamental stated purposes of Wikipedia (free exchange of information) to allow free citation which would allow the readership to engage in a discussion of veracity and/or come to their own conclusions. Moryak ( talk) 20:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
The "About us" section says "Somali Dispatch is the first full fledged English website that addresses the unique information needs of the growing English speaking masses in the Diaspora. Established in 2019, the website currently receives thousands of visitors a day. It is independently run and can be accessed and contributed to from around the world." It hints at some connection to CKCU FM in Ottawa, Canada, but not much else in terms of credentials. The attributed author for all of the articles is one of two names: "Admin" or "Mohamed Adan" which suggests this is a website maintained by one or two people. It's currently being used to source Somali president Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed's kinship with Siad Barre, which isn't supported by any other sources that approach WP:RS (it's alluded to in a few partisan Medium articles, that's about it). OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Horse Eye's Back added a statement on the reputation of People's Armed Police in Special:Diff/989899561.
The statement is as follows: The People's Armed Police are both feared and mocked by the Chinese public.
It comes from an article from the Diplomat.
The author of the
Diplomat analysis/opinion piece in question, Bonnie Girard, stated that [i]n general, it is safe to say that the PAP is not well-tolerated by a majority of Chinese, who both fear the PAP’s right to make arbitrary arrests and mock its members for their often brutish, thuggish tactics
, implying that the PAP as a whole has the power to enforce law and make arrest. Furthermore, Girard does not provide evidence for this claim in the Diplomat article.
Previous publications states that [e]xcept the MPS-led active service troops within the PAP, such as the Border Defense, Firefighting, and Guard Corps, other PAP units do not have the power to impose sanctions (e.g., arrest and detain)
[1]: 230 , and that [t]here were law enforcement services that reported to the MPS: the Public Security Border Defense Force...; Public Security Firefighting Force...; and and Public Security Guards Force... The reforms addressed this problem in part by divesting the PAP of most law enforcement and economic functions
[2]: 8, 21
User:Horse Eye's Back stated that The author is in fact a professional and subject matter expert (Girard is widely published as a quick JSTOR check can confirm)
where au:("Bonnie Girard") on JSTOR and au:Bonnie Girard on WorldCat yields no result.
Girard's claim contradicts what the previous published sources known about the PAP and therefore exceptional. Does this source qualify as multiple high-quality sources required by WP:EXCEPTIONAL? - Mys_721tx ( talk) 03:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
References
I'm working on the Izaac Hindom article and I found out about the Tapol bulletin (you can search the whole collection in [25] here). As you can read in the article, the bulletin was published by a group of political prisoners based in London (Tapol itself means political prisoners in Indonesian) to monitor human rights issues for Indonesia. But what makes me doubt the reliability of the source is when I read this particular edition.
Tapol accuses Hindom of "Javanization" (you could read on page 6 of the bulletin) and cites Kompas, 26 October 1982 as their source. When I check Kompas, 26 October 1982, the title of the headline reads as "Transmigration in Irian Jaya not "Javanization"" (Transmigrasi di Irja Bukan "Jawanisasi"). Furthermore, they quote Hindom (a Papuan) as saying "This will give birth to a new generation of people without curly hair, sowing the seeds for greater beauty." (note that curly hair is the main characteristic of Papuans, so he's basically saying that Papuans are ugly) The bulletin also quoted Hindom stating Irian Jaya (Greater Irian) will soon become Irian Java, or Javanese Irian
. However, a
Tempo
source noted that this was only a joke.
Aside from the controversial statements, Tapol is frequently cited by journals, such as this and this.
Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ( marhata) 15:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Is
this raw data an acceptable reference for the date of birth of living people? It seems to fail
WP:DOB in that it's not widely published by reliable sources
(is raw data really a reliable source?). At least one entry on the list is incorrect, see
Talk:Paul Maskey#Birthday.
FDW777 (
talk) 19:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Are these Irish newspapers reliable references at John Brady (Sinn Féin politician) ( Irish Times article and Irish Examiner article) and Claire Kerrane ( Irish Times article and Irish Examiner article)? Thank you. FDW777 ( talk) 17:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The Daily Kos has only been discussed three times. In 2015, there was consensus that it was unreliable for its election predictions. Despite this, its predictions are currently being used in articles on house races both this election and last election. Is there still consensus that it is unreliable for these? Username 6892 19:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
It's this edit [27] that concerns me (I've reverted it twice). Its article, Monsey Hanukkah stabbing also only has Cuomo as a source. In October 2019 we had an RfC at Talk:List of terrorist incidents [28] that determined that list entries should only be included if "The incident is notable (has a stand-alone article), and (2) the consensus of WP:RSes describe the incident as "terrorism"." I guess as Terrorism in the United States albeit being a standalone list is technically not covered by the RfC, the principal still seems sensible. It's also relevant that the perpetrator " had a long history of serious mental illness and had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia the year before the attack. He was charged in state court with five counts of attempted murder and one count of first-degree burglary, and in federal court on federal hate crime charges. A federal judge ruled him incompetent to stand trial on the federal charges." He is now in a mental facility. I'm not convinced that any act by such a person can be classified as terrorism, and I'll also note that by calling this terrorism we are calling him a terrorist, which looks to me like a BLP violation. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Is the Fryderyk Chopin Institute reliable for claims about pianists? Its page on Fou Ts'ong refers to an album called The Pianistic Art of Fou Ts'ong – which apparently has quite complimentary things to say about Fou in its liner notes – which I cannot verify the existence of in other reliable sources, at WorldCat, or at Discogs. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 03:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Can this [33] be used in golf course articles as to either the existence of a course or its ranking. An administrator @ Billinghurst: has been removing it out of Beaconsfield Golf Club with the following explanations- 'site non-authoritative, requires accepting cookies,' 'these were spammed which was why they were removed', and 're-read the history, the original author didn't add the spam; look at who did and all the articles that they added the spam'. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
In last few years, some of the following people have come up with original research, theories - with widespread corraboration and proofs about India / Indic / Vedic civilization going back a few thousand years. This point of view aligns very well with the local knowledge and belief system as well, and when scientific proofs are provided, it helps convert "myth" into the proper history.
There are plenty of videos, articles, books - wherein these research have been collated. Some of them are cited here. Recently, I added a bit of information in the Mahabharata page based on this research. The edit was reverted and it was quoted that the author of the book (Nilesh Oak) is a chemical engineer and not an academic.
I would like to ask / understand - on what basis does a piece of information become acceptable in wikipedia ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGyjvyXEKdc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bsyi4zYHP0
https://sangamtalks.org/dr-raj-vedam/
https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/9385485016/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i6
Isnt this enough to prove that the so called "mainstream" indian history need to be revisited ? Raghav ( talk)
I'm really not an expert here - but I feel like the [chicagotribune.com Chicago Tribune] should definitely make the list? It's a reliable and widely circulated newspaper in the United States. I found it cited in over 500 articles. OfficerCow ( talk) 22:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
These sources are all used on the Apple Inc. article as well as other apple related articles such as Beddit. There hasn't really been any discussion on these source's reliablity on RSN apart from this short post and thread, which is why I came here to ask what your guys' thoughts are on these sources and their reliability. X-Editor ( talk) 01:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
This source has been used on the listed article and on several others related to the technology being discussed, ie hot air engines and several inventors. This website has a single author who cites difficult-to-verify sources that all appear to have been published earlier than 1900. In the instance cited above, the entire subsection has only that one website for 12 references, and places where several more would have been appropriate under different circumstances.
My biggest problem with this is the website author seems to have put his personal bias on the presentation of facts and their importance to the scientific community. Also, I haven't been able to confirm that Isaac Woerlen, whose only point of contact is through LinkedIn, has the 'chops' to be relied upon so heavily. Does he have a degree relative to the subject matter?
I'm inclined to believe that rather than this author being cited, an editor might chase down his sources and use them. — Myk Streja (beep) 21:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
It's used at Eton College controversies to source the statement "Lord Bellingham wrote to the Times to say that Old Etonians would be withholding over £2 million in donations to the College as long as Henderson remained in post because of his 'woeful handling of this issue'" [38] (yes, that's the link, nothing to do with Lord Bellingham or Eton, this must be what was intended [39]). Doug Weller talk 15:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Is Designers & Dragons [40] (various editions) an RS for (a) general information, (b) BLPs about game designers, (c) non-BLP information about games? Chetsford ( talk) 04:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
the book's cover page lists only an author, no editor, indicating it is all but WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Please look on the second page of the "free sample" version you linked to, which provides the information you ask for - and more. Perhaps retract the misinformation you accidentally provided? Newimpartial ( talk) 03:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Generally reliable as a source for facts on games and game companies. Not recommended for use in biographies of living people or to support clearly controversial statements.In other words, the previous consensus was Yes to the current questions A and C and No to B. However, I do not see any policy-compliant objection presented in that discussion to the use of Designers & Dragons for non-controversial BLP information, so I would like to see the RSN finding corrected on that point.
the book's cover page lists only an author, no editor, indicating it is all but WP:SELFPUBLISHED. I do not know what publication Chetsford is looking at, but the four-volume version in my possession (ISBNs 978-1-61317-075-5, 978-1-61317-081-6, 978-61317-084-7 and 978-61317-087-8) credits in each case Shannon Appelcline as the author, John Adams as the editor, Evil Hat Productions as the publisher and 2014 as the copyright date (along with 9 other Evil Hat staff involved in the publication). Definitely not self-published, and independent except when dealing with Evil Hat Productions itself. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmp21btQMtI&list=UUTXmPRRlEkGaQNSsuExg43A
A page on "Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams" (FIRST) was rapidly deleted. In refusing a request to undelete the page Muboshgu wrote "... This does not necessarily mean a suitable article on this topic cannot be created. If it is a notable topic, e.g., multiple reliable, secondary, published sources that are entirely independent of the subject have written about it in substantive detail (not just mere mentions), then a neutrally written article may be possible. ..."
There are references to FIRST that go beyond mere mentions in The Baltimore Sun [1] and The Wall Street Journal [2]. As far as I can see these are both reliable sources. However if two sources is not sufficient to establish notability, then I need advice on the following:
networkworld has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is networkworld a reliable source?
bluekaizen has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is bluekaizen a reliable source?
elvocero has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is elvocero a reliable source?
internethealthreport has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is internethealthreport a reliable source?
tradearabia has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is tradearabia a reliable source?
I think the above are reliable sources but would appreciate feedback before proceeding. Tango Mike Bravo ( talk) 15:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Is this Telegraph India article a reliable source to use in this BLP? It's been used heavily in the article. Also, I think that page needs protection, but I'm not sure what kind or even if I'll be able to justify it again (I've successfully had it protected before), it'd be nice if someone looked into that. Thanks in advance. Please ping when you reply Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 14:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The issue at hand is to determine the reliability of a Washington Post newspaper article and, by association, a sentence, "Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation", within the article.
Your feedback about <The reliability of an article in the Washington Post has been questioned> would be appreciated on this talk page discussion where the disagreement about the reliability of the Washington Post article and its contained sentence was initiated.
I have made a post to the WP:VERIFY page requesting that the "policy" concerning "Newspaper and magazine blogs" WP:NEWSBLOG be revised as it is too vague to be useful in resolving the issue concerning the reliability of the Washington Post newspaper article.
Although the WP:NEWSBLOG policy is not to be resolved at "Reliable Sources", here is some background concerning the difficulty that prompts my request.
Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.
Here are the particulars concerning my "Reliability" dilemma:
Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation.
Please help me by determining the reliability of this article so I can end, one way or another, the argument which PackMecEng continues to prolong.
Osomite hablemos 06:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, hope you're doing well. I've been directed here from the Teahouse. My question is about WP:RS but also about WP:RSE. I'll just copy my post from there.
At WP:RS, it says:
Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
On the other hand, at WP:RSE, it says:
In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject.
The Baháʼí Faith is a small-to-medium-sized religion and there are some academic works on it, but a far greater number of articles written by Baháʼís in Baháʼí journals that aren't peer-reviewed by non-Baháʼí academics. For example, at Baháʼí Faith and science#Existence of ether, there is a quote from the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal about how the Baháʼí scriptures are compatible with modern physics. Would mainstream physicists agree? We don't know because they haven't written about it. Based on the above quote from WP:RS, I would think the material should be removed. On the other hand based on the note from WP:RSE, I would think it is okay to include. What should I do?
In 2018, Sludge magazine ran an article [43] about the video Douglas Murray (author) made for Prager University "The Suicide of Europe", which was published on PragerU's website and on YouTube. Note that the video has 7 million plus videos on PragerU's website and is, by a considerable margin, the most-viewed video when you type "Douglas Murray" into YoutTube's search bar. The Sludge article was highly critical of the video, saying, among other things, that its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation' "evokes the common white nationalist trope of 'white genocide'" says that Murray "energizes white nationalists" and takes issue with some of the specific claims made in the video. Frankly, I believe that this source is being repeatedly removed from Murray's wiki page for ideological rather than evidentiary reasons. Other sources from Middle East Eye, Southern Poverty Law Center and Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, [44] which aims to document anti-Muslim sentiment, were repeatedly removed from Murray's page with scant justification as well. I've engaged in discussions on Murray's talk page but they've proved fairly fruitless.
A few reasons why I think the Sludge article is a reliable source:
Sludge has been addressed in these forums before, in 2018. [50] However, Sludge is now two years old and for the reasons listed, I think it deserves to be treated as a fairly reliable source - and I am just treating as a source of opinion, not looking to speak in Wikipedia's voice. Noteduck ( talk) 06:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Hemiauchenia: I disagree with the "two-man band" assessment. Sludge may only have two paid employees but they certainly have other contributors - eg see [51] See also that they've had other reporters at different times - under the heading "The Sludge team" [52]. Furthermore, I don't believe they're anything like self-published when they mention that they receive funding from a 501(c)3 non-profit organization called the Participatory Politics Foundation - see again [53] I think if Sludge is to be reject as an unreliable source, it has quite regrettable implications for any small-scale journalism project Noteduck ( talk) 10:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Given that Sludge has only been around for two years it's not surprising that there have not been many discussions regarding its veracity as a source. I did find this [54] which lists Sludge as having a "left-wing bias" but gives it a higher "factual reporting" rating than, say, The Guardian, so I'm not sure what we can infer from that. However, we can conclude that:
IMO, Sludge seems small-scale but fairly intellectually rigorous and reliable. Noteduck ( talk) 11:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a source that was used on the page of conservative commentator Douglas Murray.
Note that it's listed under Opinion>Human Rights. Observe that Nafeez Ahmed is a prolific and respected academic, journalist and published author who has written for The Guardian, VICE, The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald etc and also has academic publications to his name, eg [81] and quite a few books. [82] See on his website [83] and [84]
Two passages in the article for Douglas Murray quoted Ahmed's article in order to make the following points:
Both these claims were derived from the passage in the Ahmed article which read:
"I'm not sure Murray’s screed against the free speech of those asking questions about the intelligence services is ironic given that in a separate Wall Street Journal comment, he laments that the attacks in Paris and Copenhagen prove the West is losing the war on “free speech” being waged by Islamists. But Murray’s concerns about free speech are really just a ploy for far-right entryism."
It has repeatedly been argued that references to Ahmed's article should not be used on the basis it is not a RS, undue weight, appealing to emotion etc. It's true that the Ahmed article is an opinion piece, but note that the excerpts are never phrased in Wiki's voice and that the article merely notes that Murray "has been described" as far right according to Ahmed. This comes amidst an unfortunate context of vandalism and tendentious editing on Murray's page. It's the academic consensus that Murray's views can best be described as far-right, alt-right, Islamophobic, white nationalist or some combination thereof [85] [86] [87] [88], so the point Ahmed is making is hardly novel.
Any help would be appreciated! Does this belong on Murray's page or not? Noteduck ( talk) 01:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Forum Shopping Noteduck, this exact source is being discussed just up the page [ [89]]. Springee ( talk) 04:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The following book is written by William S. Hatcher, a mathematician (by training) who served on National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada (1983–91). The book is published by Baha'i Publishing Trust. Is it a reliable source on the history of Baha'i Faith? Taha ( talk) 17:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hatcher, W.S.; Martin, J.D. (2002). The Bahá'í Faith: The Emerging Global Religion. Baha'i Publishing. ISBN 978-1-931847-06-3. Retrieved 2021-01-02.
Policies are pretty clear that it's a reliable source and can be used in context even if it has bias. WP:BIASED:
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.
Also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It depends what the book is sourcing. If you're looking for a way to throw out Hatcher and not use it because it carries a Baha'i bias, someone could argue that Denis MacEoin and Juan Cole are not neutral and should not be used because they are clearly biased against Baha'is based on personal conflicts. Even more so with Iranian government sources that spread intentional disinformation. If the assertion being referenced by Taherzadeh is contested in other reliable sources, then sometimes you can mention the sources and the differences in sources. WP:WIKIVOICE:
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
just likeWell, no, obviously not "just like" -- adherents of a religion have a very particular problem serving as commentators on their own religion that is not similar to any problems that might be held by anyone else (except maybe apostates). -- JBL ( talk) 00:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't expect to be back here quite so soon, but just ran into it being used for this edit [90] in Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory. I removed it as clearly not a reliable source for that edit. It's used in other articles. [91]. Other than for itself, I can't think of any reason to use it at all. Here's a link to the journal. [92] Doug Weller talk 07:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Recently on Please Please Me (song) I attempted to include relevant information about the spelling "Beattles" being on the 17 January 1964 and 24 January 1964 WLS Silver Dollar Surveys. However, Sundayclose objected to sources such as oldiesloon or www.las-solanas.com as being "self-published", even though oldiesloon is currently referenced just a few sentences earlier, even in the very same article and in many other articles, and without providing any alternative source.
I see no evidence that either source is "self-published". For example, I see no means by which anyone could contribute to either site, at least in any direct sense. After reading suggested articles that supposedly deal with such things, I am now more confused than I have ever been.
Clearly the surveys exist. I have a copy of each. The problem seems to be finding a source for such surveys without running afoul of a myriad of possible objections from Wikipedia editors. At this point I have no idea who to ask about what.
Any ideas come to mind? 98.149.97.245 ( talk) 22:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
"Regardless of the reliability of the source, this seems like a minor point that is only peripherally related to the subject of the article."
The point is that the spelling "Beattles" on the WLS Silver Dollar Surveys carried over to "I Want To Hold Your Hand", even after the spelling had been corrected on the record label for "Please Please Me".
From Sundayclose to me:
"I assume you mean these photos: http://www.las-solanas.com/surveys/WLS/WLS_1964-01-17_1.jpg [and http://www.las-solanas.com/surveys/WLS/WLS_1964-01-24_1.jpg] . On this you need more than my opinion as I am not sure whether the links to the photos would be considered reliable since the source on which they are posted is not reliable. It's certainly better than just linking the website's transcription of the surveys.
"Post the links at WP:RSN and see what others think.
"You have to be patient; you're not going to get a lot of comments quickly. But if you get some support over the next couple of weeks and no serious opposition, that would be good enough for me. If you don't get much response there after a couple of weeks, another option later is a WP:RFC at Talk:Please Please Me (song). That probably will generate some attention. By the way, another editor pointed out a completely different issue: whether the misspelling in the surveys is notable enough to be included in a discussion of the misspelling by Vee-Jay. I don't have an opinion either way on that." Sundayclose (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Your thoughts? 98.149.97.245 ( talk) 23:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I recommended that Crux (online newspaper) be added a reliable source, since I could not find any mention of it here. https://cruxnow.com/ While editorially it is aligned with the Catholic Church, have a viewpoint does not make a source unreliable and most news items seem largely free of a very biased pov. They are regularly cited by The New York Times and Washington Post for information on the church and does not have a record of a failed fact-check, at least from what I have seen. What do people think? 3Kingdoms ( talk) 23:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Is Media Watch (TV series) [115] a reliable source? Basically, this is a weekly Australian TV series produced by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation which aims to highlight errors, hypocrisy and conflicts of interests in the Australian media. According to the blurb on the ABC website:
Media Watch is Australia's leading forum for media analysis and critique.
Since 1989 Media Watch has been exposing conflicts of interest, journalistic deceit, misrepresentation, manipulation and plagiarism.
Media Watch turns the spotlight onto those who 'make the news': the reporters, the online editors, producers, camera operators and photographers. We also keep an eye on those who try to manipulate the media: the PR consultants, media agencies, spin-doctors, lobbyists and social influencers.
It's hosted by Paul Barry, who is quite an acclaimed journalist, and has an extensive staff listed including Barry as presenter in additions to a story editor and two additional journalists [116]. It's well-known and well-respected in Australia and I can't think of any times when it has published a story found to be incorrect or retracted a story (correct me if I'm wrong). That said, given that its job is attacking the news media it frequently runs into criticism or threats of lawsuits, [117] but I can't think of one that ever led to any finding against the program. Here's Media Watch mentioned in the parliamentary record [118] It has made it into academic journals as well - here's a reference to a hoax it successfully pulled on the Australia media in 2010 [119]
The specific point I want to make is quite minor. I want to make a point on the page of The Australian's Greg Sheridan. There's a paragraph about Sheridan's claim that he "never saw racism in the USA", to which I want to add something like "the ABC's Media Watch criticized Sheridan's assertion on the basis that he lacked lived experience of racial discrimination". Clink this link for the Media Watch story I want to use, which is about BLM and the lack of diversity in Australian media [120] Sheridan's claim was also criticized in The Guardian here [121]
RS? Thanks Wikipedians! Noteduck ( talk) 01:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I was surprised to discover a book by famed Holocaust denier David Irving among the sources of Blondi, (one of) Hitler's last dog(s).The cited claim is that Hitler bought a different German shepherd to keep Blondi company and that her name was Bella. Is this sort of thing allowed? GPinkerton ( talk) 03:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This is (or was) a publisher that produced books consisting of Wikipedia articles. (Previous discussions: Archive 120 and Archive 97.)
From Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents:
Despite all MobileReference citations being removed some years ago, we now have a small number re-introduced, which I plan to remove, depending on the feedback received here.
They may have produced books source through other means, or possibly combining Wikipedia articles with other freely available sources. One such example was cited in Museum Lane:
Museum Lane runs between two of London's leading museums in South Kensington, namely the Science Museum to the north and the Natural History Museum (formerly the Geological Museum) to the south. [1]
This source claims to include opening times, as such probably incorporates information from Google Maps.
It seems difficult, if not impossible, to gauge the reliability of all the MobileReference books individually. Nonetheless it seems to me reasonable that, sans a reason to make an exception, we should add MobleReference to the list of perennial sources as unreliable.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough 07:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC).
Is Pando a reliable source? It comes up a fair bit in BLP deletion discussions, and taking a look at it, they certainly hold themselves out as a news site. But it's a tiny bit unlike that, somewhat more like a blog. The contributors are often professional journalists [122] [123], but sometimes podcast hosts [124], non-journalists [125], academics [126], and... people contributing apparently promotional pseudo-articles [127] and opinion pieces from activists [128]. Amiee Pearcy appears to be the only staff editor [129] and I'm slightly concerned this may be more like her blog with guest contributors than a news organization. Sometimes they repost random medium articles from contributors whose qualifications they do not state [130]. It looks like it might be a very small operation, and in 2019 it appears its entire editorial staff changed due to the sale of the site [131]. In the founding statement, the founder calls it a blog [132]. What do we think about the following questions?
FalconK ( talk) 00:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
While Rollcall.com may be a reliable source for some things, it's page ranking the wealth of the 115th United States Congress at the beginning of 2018 [133] (shown as 2021 in Portman's article) says:
"While these reports open a window into the financial position of every member, they are far from comprehensive or exact. Members need only report their financial positions in 11 broad ranges of value, starting with less than $1,000 and maxing out at $50 million or more. And they do not need to report the values of their principal residences or their contents, the biggest assets for most Americans. Liabilities open during any part of 2016 are also counted. What’s more, the policing of the accuracy of these reports appears to be spotty. The consequence for making an obvious mistake or omission is generally a letter from the clerk of the House or the Senate Ethics Committee encouraging an amended filing." Doug Weller talk 07:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
according to Roll Call's ranking of the wealth of congresspeople, which relies on disclosure reports filed by members of Congress …etc. In general, I've always seen Roll Call as an excellent source for US federal politics, and this article confirms that prior as opposed to calling it into question. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 15:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
In Illinois, conservative operative Dan Proft has set up various political publications that take on the style and format of newspapers, obstinately to hide their true purpose as political advertisements. The main umbrella for these publications is Local Government Information Services which as of writing includes
|
|
|
As documented in this article from the The State Journal-Register, the political advertisements run negative content about Democratic candidates ("Democrat X eats babies") giving no right of response to those candidates while running vague upbeat stories about Republican candidates ("Republican Y wants to help everyone") that lift content word for word from said Republican's promotional materials. Illinois Playbook, a publication of Politico has a summary of the politicized coverage coming from the various publications. An example of this being used against a Republican that Proft's organization did not prefer can be found here.
The reason I raise this issue Rich Miller, a longtime journalist covering the Illinois General Assembly, estimated in a 2018 article published in the The News-Gazette that 90% of the articles about the 2018 Illinois House of Representatives election and the 2018 Illinois Senate election were from one of the political publications. I believe this creates the risk of such politicized information being used in articles about Illinois elections and in the biographies of Illinois elected officials.
The publications include some non-political content that appears to be pulled from public sources and then written by algorithms such as "Meeting of Cityville City Council to Occur on Smarch 32nd" or "Bill Smith Pulled 4 Democratic Ballots In 5 Cycles". I believe I may have used such a publication in the past for party affiliations of township officials. I have no reason to believe that the information I used was wrong. However, considering the amount of political advertisements versus apolitical content, I believe we should have some caveats on how these publications can be used on Wikipedia.
Thoughts on this would be appreciated.-- Mpen320 ( talk) 03:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC) (forgot to sign)
A concern has been raised about the quality of sources at Coat of arms of The Catholic University of America, an article I created yesterday. Before I did, I consulted the four similar articles and thought the sourcing here was at least as good as in those:
When the CUA article was new page patrolled the reviewer didn't flag it, but I would appreciate another review. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 21:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Curious to know what others think about the reliability of How Stuff Works. They don't appear on WP:RSP at all as of Dec 2020. Their website has a section on reliability where they talk about their approach, their commitment to transparency, awards they've received, and writer selection process. [1] They also stress that they're not a primary source, but my understanding is that secondary sources are acceptable on Wikipedia, as long as they're not the topic of a page. I'm on the fence on this one, and would love to know what other, more experienced editors think. Mozby ( talk) 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
References
professionally writen[140], it is used as a source by The Independent [141], it was a New York Times podcast pick [142]. Is that still too superficial? ~ El D. ( talk to me) 14:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The US State Department released a report in August 2020, titled Pillars of Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem, which documented six state-sponsored disinformation / fake news sites. There is some overlap with the EU's anti-disinformation East Stratcom Task Force's sites that have already been blacklisted here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#State-sponsored_fake_news_sites. The six sites named in the State Department report are:
Would propose that these four sites be added to the spamblocked sites from the December 2019 RfC here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#RfC:_Deprecation_of_fake_news_/_disinformation_sites.
Suppose that another RfC would be required for this? - Amigao ( talk) 22:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This popscience magazine publishes interviews, press releases, etc. It has often been used on WP to promote WP:FRINGE claims about UFOs and various people or their works. Since RSN archives about it are limited, I thought it'd be a good time to discuss it. It's been mentioned at WP:FTN a few times like here, here, here and more recently here. It's now even at WP:ANI here. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 15:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
When Gawker is the only source for a piece of information, the information would likely constitute undue weight, etc. If the concern about how seriously a publication should be taken is more general than a single article, as is the case here, surely it's all part of the same discussion. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
China's CCTV is their state-run TV channel, and they have many channels. Unlike CGTN, which often features VOA-like or RFA-like garbage, CCTV actually has very good content on their other channels other than #1 (I've watched both a lot recently). Xinwen Lianbo, their famous news program, has more a more propaganda-esque tone, especially when reporting on controversial issues (it's my least favourite CCTV channel for this reason, and I even jokingly nicknamed all the CCTV news reporters "陈先生" (Mr. Chen) and "李小姐" (Miss Li) regardless of their name, because they sound all the same and say the same things over and over), and sometimes their reporting on subjects such as Taiwan or the South China Sea may be questionable and should be avoided in citations. However, it is a reliable source for citing the official opinion of the PRC and the CCP, and the reporting on non-controversial mainland news is usually reliable. In CCTV-1's other programs, they are usually "meh", and it sometimes gets annoying when they over-sensationalize something and say, for example, when the aforementioned "陈先生" says, "哇!这颗螺丝显示出来“中国速度”!真先进啊!" (that was obviously an exaggerated joke, but you get the idea) However, other channels, such as CCTV 9, has great, factual documentaries on Chinese history (this is my favourite so far, it's on the Chengdu-Kunming railway, and there's no annoying 陈先生和李小姐), and CCTV 10 has a lot of good technology-related documentaries too. Is it safe to cite CCTV, provided that the subject of the news report or documentary is non-controversial and well-presented? Félix An ( talk) 00:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Is BET considered a reliable source?
Neither Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources nor Media Bias/Fact Check mention this website. I'd like to think it's reliable given that it's owned by a major media company, but the fact that some of its articles are heavily sensationalized makes me think otherwise. Ixfd64 ( talk) 23:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks trade, many articles rely on historical information from news outlets and contextual sources. Though, more recently I've been interested in finding out the reliability of sources, and from people who claim to be "experts in the field". One of these sources would be from Bill Androckitis Jr. who runs the blog, Touring Central Florida, and has been quoted by the Tampa Bay Business Journal as being one of these amusement park experts 1 2. The main question I wish to pose here relies on individual roller coaster articles (i.e. Time Traveler (roller coaster), Iron Gwazi, VelociCoaster) that seek historical information and opinions based on their respective reception sections.
For one, how can I determine definitively if these people are indeed "leading experts in the field"? Does a mention in a newspaper or journal define such expertise? On another point, if their expertise is reliable, can their personal website(s) be used towards providing any relevant information to historical reporting on an attraction and/or be sufficient sources for opinions related to the reception cascaded upon reviewing a new attraction? All the best, Adog ( Talk・ Cont) 04:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)