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 270 | ← | Archive 273 | Archive 274 | Archive 275 | Archive 276 | Archive 277 | → | Archive 280 |
Please consider whether the NYT article should have its Epstein coverage demoted to "reliable but not independent" based on some or all of the following points is sufficient sourcing for the claim highlighted in point #5. (Striking original request per Newslinger’s comment).
petrarchan47
คุ
ก 00:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Bold
Bold
Bold
___
1) NPR calls out NYT for dropping the ball on Epstein coverage
NPR describes how 3 media outlets whitewashed Epstein coverage for various reasons. One of them was the New York Times: How the media fell short on Epstein
___
2) Current NYT CEO Mark Thompson & the BBC pedophile scandal and alleged coverup
Extended content
|
---|
|
___
3) Joi Ito - NYT BOD (2012-2019)
MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito and colleagues concealed Epstein donations and affiliation with the program. Ito knew Epstein donations were disallowed and created a coverup at MIT of the source and amount of donations. He also sought Epstein donations of $1.7 million for personal projects. Ito stepped down (but was not fired) from the NYT board of directors, as well as several other boards and the MIT Media Lab, on the heels of the New Yorker piece.
Apparently the NYT had the scoop but sat on it. WaPost: "Before Ito’s resignations, prominent women in the media world such as Xeni Jardin had spoken out on social media against his ties to Epstein"
Xeni: "I told the [New York Times] everything. So did whistleblowers I was in touch with inside MIT and Edge. They printed none of the most damning truths..."
___
4) Soft, almost romantic description of Epstein's abuse:
5) Possibly inaccurate coverage of Epstein-related court documents
Two thousand pages of previously sealed court documents were released the night before Epstein was declared dead. The New York Times makes a claim that no one else ( except Alan Dershowitz and Ghislaine Maxwell) has, a claim now mirrored in our Jeffrey Epstein article:
NYT "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue."
Wikipedia: "The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false."
The claim was made midway through a fluff piece about Trump-fueled conspiracy theories involving Bill Clinton. Besides this brief mention, the NYT has not reported on the documents. WP editors have taken its statement to mean that Guiffre admitted Clinton was not on the island, contrary to her earlier testimony. They have decided that because it was printed in the Times, it must be true, and lack of corroborating reports, and the presence of contradictory reports, are seen as irrelevant because the NYT is considered to be reliable.
In transcripts of Giuffre’s deposition released by the court Friday, Bill Clinton‘s relationship with Epstein is expounded upon. Giuffre alleges that Clinton was around when she was with Epstein on his island. Giuffre claims that she “flew to the Caribbean” with Epstein when she was 17, and that while she was there, Maxwell bragged that she picked Clinton up in a "black helicopter that Jeffrey [Epstein] bought her". Giuffre further says that she had spent time with Clinton and that while his secret service agents were there, they weren’t "where [everyone] was eating." ... While the details of the alleged helicopter trip were, thus, unclear, Giuffre’s other statements in the deposition, if true, confirm Bill Clinton was on Jeffrey Epstein’s island while underage girls were present. This runs contradictory to Clinton’s claims that he has never been to Jeffrey Epstein’s private island.
The documents say Guiffre was directed to have sex with former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, among other powerful men. NYT mentions this nowhere in its reporting. Those who do cover the Richardson allegations include but are not limited to:
Most media did not mention Clinton at all; I've included the text from those that did because it shows how vastly different the NYT report is from all other accounts. No other media mentions any lie or misstatement whatsoever from Guiffre in their coverage:
Extended content
|
---|
|
Thanks for your help. petrarchan47 คุ ก 22:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
"benched [correspondent Landon Thomas Jr.] instantly from any professional contact with Epstein"when they discovered his conflict of interest, and then
"By early January 2019, Thomas was gone from the Times". The NPR piece condemns only the correspondent (Landon Thomas Jr.), but not the NYT as a whole. I would exercise caution when using Thomas's coverage of Epstein (e.g. his 2008 profile of Epstein) in any source, not just the NYT. The NYT's rapid removal of Thomas is a positive indicator of its reputation.
"Thompson departed the BBC before public exposure of the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal and is not noted in the BBC chronology of the unfolding coverage". A short mention of Thompson's media responses might be warranted in the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal article if due, but this scandal involves the BBC personality Jimmy Savile, and is unrelated to the NYT's coverage of Epstein.
"The woman said her life was permanently scarred by the sexual abuse that started when she was 14."Your quote, "the massages quickly became sexual", does not exist in the article. The actual quote was
"That first massage quickly turned sexual", and the next paragraph elaborated that
'she returned to Mr. Epstein’s home “countless times” until she was 17, with the visits becoming more frequent and the abuse becoming more severe.'The NYT's coverage here is in line with the descriptions from other reliable sources.
Video Deposition of Virginia Giuffre, Volume II Examination by Ms. Menninger (pages 1910–1917)
|
---|
7 Q Okay. You have mentioned a journalist by 8 the name of Sharon Churcher. 9 A Yes. 10 Q You are aware that Sharon Churcher 11 published news stories about you? 12 A Yes. 13 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 14 Go ahead. 15 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Is anything that you 16 have read in Sharon Churcher's news stories about you 17 untrue? 18 A I think Sharon did print some things that 19 I think she elaborated or maybe misheard. But, I 20 mean, if you have a specific document to show me, I'd 21 love to look at it and read it and tell you what I 22 think. 23 Q Is there anything, as you sit here today, 24 that you know of that Sharon Churcher printed about 25 you that is not true? 1 A Not off the top of my head. If you show 2 me, like, a news clipping article or something, I can 3 definitely read it for you. 4 Q Is there anything that you know of that 5 Sharon Churcher has printed about Ghislaine Maxwell 6 that is not true? 7 A No, not off -- no, not off the top of my 8 head. 9 Q Is there anything that you recall saying 10 to Sharon Churcher that she then printed something 11 different than what you had said to her? 12 A Yeah, I've read stuff. I mean, I just -- 13 I can't remember what, but I read something that I 14 think was, Oh, she got that wrong. I can't remember 15 an exact example off the top of my head. 16 Q Did you ever complain to Sharon Churcher 17 about things that she got wrong? 18 A I didn't see a point. I might have, but 19 I -- I didn't see a point really because it's already 20 printed, you know. 21 Q You had a fairly voluminous set of 22 communications with Sharon Churcher by e-mail, 23 correct? 24 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 25 A Voluminous, like a lot of them? 1 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Yes. 2 A Yes. 3 Q And during any of those communications, do 4 you know whether she printed things about you after 5 you had any of those communications? 6 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 7 A I don't know. I know a lot of stuff was 8 printed, and I never really stopped to read who 9 printed the article, or wrote the article, I should 10 say. Sorry. 11 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Okay. I'll show you 12 Defendant's Exhibit 7. 13 (Exhibit 7 marked.) 14 THE DEPONENT: Thank you. 15 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) I'll let you read 16 through the statements on the first page there, and 17 if there is anything that is not absolutely true, 18 just put a check by it and we'll come back to it. 19 A It's not very clear how she wrote it. "I 20 flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine 21 Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge black 22 helicopter that Jeffrey had bought her." 23 That wasn't an eyewitness statement. 24 Like, I didn't see her do it. Ghislaine was the one 25 who told me about that; that she's the one who flew 1 Bill. 2 Q All right. If you just want to put a 3 check by it, then we'll just come back and talk about 4 each one. 5 A Okay. 6 Q Just to move things along. 7 A Okay. I have made three checkmarks. 8 Q All right. 9 MS. MCCAWLEY: And I just -- before you 10 continue, I just want to identify for the record, 11 since this doesn't have any identifiers on it, are 12 you representing that these are statements from 13 Sharon Churcher? 14 MS. MENNINGER: I'm not representing 15 anything. I'm asking the witness questions about 16 these statements. I asked her is anything on here 17 not true. That's all I asked her. 18 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) So which ones did you 19 put checkmarks by, Ms. Giuffre? 20 A I'd have been -- I'm sorry. "I'd have 21 been about 17 at the time. I flew to the Caribbean 22 with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick 23 up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey had 24 bought her." 25 Q Okay. And what else did you put a check 1 by? 2 A "I used to get frightened flying with her 3 but Bill had the Secret Service with him and I 4 remember him talking about what a good job" -- 5 sorry -- "job she did." 6 Q Okay. And what else did you put a check 7 by? 8 A "Donald Trump was also a good friend of 9 Jeffrey's. He didn't partake in any sex with any of 10 us but he flirted with me. He'd laugh and tell 11 Jeffrey, 'you've got the life.'" 12 Q Other than the three you've just 13 mentioned -- 14 A Yeah. 15 Q -- everything else on here is absolutely 16 accurate? 17 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 18 A Yes. Well, to the best of my 19 recollection, yes. 20 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) All right. What is 21 inaccurate about, "I'd have been about 17 at the 22 time. I flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then 23 Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge 24 black helicopter that Jeffrey had bought her"? 25 A Because it makes it kind of sound like an 1 eyewitness thing. 2 Q Okay. Did you say that statement to 3 Sharon Churcher? 4 A I said to Sharon that Ghislaine told me 5 that she flew Bill in the heli- -- the black 6 helicopter that Jeffrey bought her, and I just wanted 7 to clarify that I didn't actually see her do that. I 8 heard from Ghislaine that she did that. 9 Q You heard that from Ghislaine, and then 10 you reported to Sharon Churcher that you had heard 11 that from Ghislaine. 12 A Correct. 13 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 14 A I heard a lot of things from Ghislaine 15 that sounded too true -- too outrageous to be true, 16 but you never knew what to believe, so... 17 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Okay. And after 18 Sharon Churcher printed what she said you said, did 19 you complain to her that it was inaccurate? 20 A I might have verbally with her, but again, 21 I didn't see a point in making a hissy over it 22 because what was done was done. She had already 23 printed. 24 Q What was inaccurate about, "I used to get 25 frightened flying with her but Bill" said -- "had the 1 Secret Service with him and I remember him talking 2 about what a good job she did"? 3 A I just don't remember saying that to her. 4 I don't remember saying I remember him talking about 5 what a good job she did. 6 Q All right. 7 A I just don't remember that at all. 8 Q Okay. And I guess, just to be clear, my 9 questions wasn't do you remember saying this to 10 Sharon Churcher; my question is, is that statement 11 accurate? 12 MS. MCCAWLEY: Well, objection. 13 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did you used to get 14 frightened flying with her? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Okay. Did Bill have the Secret Service 17 with him? 18 A They were there, but not like on the -- 19 not where we were eating. 20 Q Do you remember Bill talking about what a 21 good job she did? 22 A I don't remember that. 23 Q So what is inaccurate about that 24 statement? 25 A I just -- it's inaccurate because I don't 1 remember him talking about what a good job she did. 2 I don't remember that. 3 Q Does it inaccurately suggest that Bill had 4 the Secret Service with him on a helicopter? 5 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 6 A Well, not being an eyewitness to it, I 7 wouldn't be able to tell you. I can't tell you what 8 I don't know. 9 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) And do you believe you 10 said that statement to Sharon Churcher? 11 A I mean, Sharon and I talked a lot, and if 12 she misheard me or just wrote it in the way that she 13 thought she should, I have no control over that. So 14 I'm not too sure. 15 Q Did she record your interviews? 16 A Some of them. Some of them she didn't. I 17 mean, we, like -- we, like, met for like a week, and 18 we spent a lot of time together, and then even after 19 that we just continued, like, kind of a friendship. |
"The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue", appears to assert the first conclusion with the key words
"claim she made".
"The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue.") is not enough to substantiate the exceptional claim that Giuffre made a false statement. I can't be certain that the NYT was wrong, since the NYT article doesn't specify which
"earlier claim"Giuffre allegedly made, and because I only performed a text search on the Epstein documents instead of a thorough review of the entire 2024-page PDF. However, if I were a reporter, I would not accuse Giuffre of making a false statement based on the excerpt of the transcript I posted above, which is the most relevant portion of the documents I was able to find through a text search. — Newslinger talk 01:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false; a claim being false does not mean it was a lie, especially given that the context makes it very easy for Giuffre to have simply been mistaken. Furthermore, the statement that she was mistaken is not exceptional - numerous other sources in the article support that, eg.
The Secret Service told Fox News in 2016 it had no record of agents being on the island. Giuffre claims Maxwell told her she flew Clinton to the island on her helicopter, although she conceded, "I heard a lot of things from Ghislaine that sounded too true – too outrageous to be true, but you never knew what to believe." Maxwell denied Guiffre's claim that Clinton visited the island.In fact, it is Giuffre's accusation that is WP:EXCEPTIONAL here. Furthermore, reporting such an exceptional claim about a living figure without covering exculpatory reporting in a high-quality WP:RS clearly violates WP:BLP. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The NYT may not respond at all, so Aquillion's decision to remove the details about Clinton until the NYT responds is untenable. He is insisting that the NYT piece must be mentioned if the claim about Clinton and the island is mentioned. I compromised with the following:
This edit was reverted by Soiblanga who states that there is no ambiguity in the NYT statement, contrary to what Newslinger and Slim Virgin state above. He also states that Guiffre's claim "has been exhaustively debunked".
I would appreciate some help as I can't seem to reason with editors and don't quite know what else to do. petrarchan47 คุ ก 03:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I would appreciate some help as I can't seem to reason with editors and don't quite know what else to do.Oh. The. Irony. soibangla ( talk) 18:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I arrive at this looong discussion belatedly and have read parts of it, primarily related to the NYT sentence reporting unambiguously that Guiffre later acknowledged her earlier claim Clinton visited Epstein's island was untrue, and here's my bottom line. None of us are in the position of second-guessing reliable sources on a selected basis, especially if it debunks a years-long narrative that some may have embraced as established fact, only to see it debunked years later, and they just can't accept it. "A lie gets halfway around the world while the truth is still getting its shoes on," and now the truth has finally caught up to the lie. The NYT is one of the best sources of information on the planet, and that's not by accident: it's because they employ seasoned, vetted journalists/editors who catch things others miss, or others choose not to report for reasons that may include space/time constraints. The fact no one else reported that particular nugget of information does not mean the NYT got it wrong. The moment we start second-guessing highly reliable sources on a selected basis is the moment we step into a slippery slope resulting in every reliable source falling into question, until we conclude nothing is reliable anymore, and at that point Wikipedia might as well just shut down. soibangla ( talk) 18:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
an earlier claim, they unambiguously state that one of the claims she made was untrue. They do not, however, state
acknowledged her earlier claim, as you have stated above, and that is why you're not understanding this issue.
The insistence on keeping the Clinton bit out of the article unless we have (or can create) a rebuttal is a NPOV violation. I've opened a thread here. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a request for comment that aims to resolve the above content dispute. If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein § RfC: Virginia Giuffre and Bill Clinton. — Newslinger talk 21:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like to know if Halopedia would be considered a reliable source when it comes to Halo-related articles. It isn't currently cited in any article, but I know that among the Halo community, it is considered to be very accurate. Jeb3 Talk at me here What I've Done 12:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
In the last comment in this section (archived while I calmed down), Guy said "Well that's a remarkable bit of selective reading: you choose to interpret the replies in a way that gives you permission to reinsert the trivial crap back into the article." If that's a concession, it's a rather strange one—mixed with abuse.
Assuming it's not a concession allowing a modified roll-back to before the first of Guy's September edits, it's time for Guy and Scope_creep and Pavlor to provide a good faith explanation of why the Retrospect (software) article as of 19:11, 12 September 2019 "was bloated with trivia", "really horrible", a "product manual", and "a marketing piece". To focus the discussion, I've done some appropriate rough counting of items in that article and in two WP articles about competing enterprise client-server backup applications—plus FYI item counts for a competing personal "push" backup application.
The Retrospect (software) article as of 19:11, 12 September 2019 had 46 mentions of distinct features in 1.2 screen-pages. 12 of the cites for those features were to first-party references; these were to 2 User's Guides, a cumulative Release Notes, and a Web-linked collection of Knowledge Base articles. There never was a version history section; the Fall 2016 version was historically-structured with some how-to, but JohnInDC eliminated all that in Fall 2017.
The Backup Exec article as of 00:14, 9 October 2019 had 49 mentions of distinct features in 1.6 screen-pages. 36 of the cites for those features were to first-party references—only one of which was cited more than once. There's a version history section, but it only contains release numbers and dates.
The NetBackup article as of 16:59, 3 September 2019 had 38 mentions of distinct features in 1.0 screen-pages. All 16 of the cites for those features were to first-party references—only three of which were cited more than once. There's a version history section, but it only contains release numbers and dates.
FYI the Acronis True Image article as of 02:47, 27 September 2019 had 30 mentions of distinct features in 1.25 screen-pages. 7 of the cites for those features were to first-party references—none of which was cited more than once. There's a version history section that includes mentions of features, so I've counted its length as part of the feature screen-pages. As I pointed out to Scope_creep early in the now-archived Discussion of a September 2017 RfC ( here's the diff, but it includes earlier and later sections whose comments were interspersed), he may have considered this "an ideal article to determine how to structure this [Retrospect] one"—but "Acronis is a 'push' backup system in which each individual conceptual 'client' pushes data to a backup 'host' (which may not be a full-fledged computer) at its non-'host'-controlled option". That fact explains why the Acronis True Image article, which is about a personal backup application, lists fewer (sparsely-referenced) features than the above-discussed 3 articles about enterprise client-server backup applications.
The 4 paragraphs directly above show that the Retrospect article listed about the same number of "trivial" features—mostly the same ones with better-linked names—as the articles for the other two enterprise client-server backup applications. I put in the better-linked names at the insistence of Scope_creep in Fall 2017; he said using the developer's own feature names was "marketing". IMHO the other reason the feature sections of the Retrospect came across as "marketing" is because—greatly shortened at the insistence of JohnInDC in fall 2017—I included brief descriptions of the features. By contrast, the other two client-server articles don't include any descriptions; almost all the links for feature names in those two articles are ones I added myself in January 2019.
The Retrospect article actually had an "anti-marketing" item—staying within the limits of WP:NPOV—in the first and third paragraphs of the History section until Guy deleted it. The Windows variant of the application suffers to this day from the absence of a true Administration Console, which the Mac variant and the other two enterprise client-server applications have, but there's no second-party reference that says so. I used to have a link to a section of the Windows Vista article that explains the absence, but that was deleted in Fall 2017 and probably violates WP:Synthesis. Since I intend to put the features sections back into the Retrospect article with no first-party references (at the cost of two or three feature items), that "anti-marketing" item will stay out because its references were a Retrospect Knowledge Base article and the Retrospect Windows cumulative Release Notes (improvements to a poor Console substitute).
Can anyone point to a Wikipedia rule that says a specification of a software application's non-trivial features is ipso-facto "a "product manual" or a "marketing piece"? Can anyone specify which are the trivial features I listed in the Retrospect article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DovidBenAvraham ( talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I cut the article by about 0.5 screen-pages, and the combined Standard features" section by 0.3 screen-pages. It's still in my Sandbox; I'll move it Sunday night when I have time to write an explanatory comment on the article's Talk page. DovidBenAvraham ( talk) 15:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I think there is an undisclosed Wikipedia:Conflict of interest here. Judging by the editing pattern it seems like Ch.Davis ( talk · contribs) is Paul Andrews (producer) or someone closley associated. All the edits have beens self-promotion. // Liftarn ( talk) 11:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I notice a few record label articles using https://labelsbase.net/ as a source for artist lists. I noticed the risk of incorrect listings on the websites just today after the recent redirect overwrite of Nicole Bus, which previously redirected to Bitbird based on LabelsBase, after which I could not find any reliable sources establishing the artist's connection with the record label. A quick look at the website's About page shows the possibility that the website falls under WP:UGC. Other articles using this source include NoCopyrightSounds, Stmpd Rcrds, and Musical Freedom. See also Special:Search/Labelsbase. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted almost identical WP:REFSPAM from at least a dozen IP/users in the last month or two. XLinkBot was given the parameter a couple of days ago and has reverted a dozen or so SPAs with one-edit accounts. General M/O is to add an unnecessary WP:REFSPAM with an edit summary like: "adding a reference for the Job Title / Company Name". There's often already a perfectly valid reference there. There may, I suppose, be occasions where this is a valid source for a reference, and there are a few hundred existing links, but I haven't seen any occasions where it's an irreplaceable, reliable source, and this looks like a campaign to use us to drive traffic to the site. They are a commercial company who makes money out of selling access to their database
Beetstra raises the valid question as to whether the spamming is a "joe-job". Perhaps, but a pretty determined one if that's the case - and for what reason? Determined competitor? Ex-employee with a grudge and a lot of spare time?
We decided that bringing it here for an overview on how we view these links was the best plan. -- Begoon 06:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
also note that their content is a paid subscription service, so it's behind a paywall.Zoominfo acquired and maintains its database by copying data from the internet using a proprietary web crawler called NextGenSearchBot, [1] analyzing the copied data to extract information, and storing the information in a database. [2]
References
"copying data from the internet using a proprietary web crawler called NextGenSearchBot, analyzing the copied data to extract information, and storing the information in a database"then they quite probably got a decent amount of it from wikipedia in the first place. Now they are spamming links here to drive traffic back to their paid service? Hmm.... Doesn't sound very "reliable" to me... -- Begoon 08:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Not an RS, and maybe deprecate. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Should The Western Journal be deprecated? Or listed as generally unreliable? Or something else? X1\ ( talk) 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
For the WesternJournal.com, see earlier Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#Western Journal, and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Western Journal for comments on The Western Journal's reputation. Note: I have only been in a previous "rating", and haven't kept up on potential process changes here. X1\ ( talk) 22:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
westernjournal.com/corrections
section? If they don't correct the articles themselves, a separate page will often be ignored.
X1\ (
talk) 21:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Bellingcat - please can we ensure this site is not taken as a credible source on WP? This outlet is funded by The
National Endowment for Democracy - a right-wing corporate think tank who essentially help the CIA and other western nations to overthrow other countries that don't allow themselves to be bullied by the WTO and IMF. Nothing less than propaganda and anyone accepting funding from them has seriously tainted any credibility they already had. Here's an e.g. from
Consortium News (the outlet that broke the Watergate scandal before someone automatically assumes "they can't be credible because I've never heard of them")
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/28/the-dirty-hand-of-the-national-endowment-for-democracy-in-venezuela/
Apeholder (
talk) 00:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Please could we consider Reveal News ( http://www.revealnews.org)? They are an online outlet but also air their radio show / podcast on various radio stations across the USA. They have been around since 1977 and have won a truly staggering amount of awards and nominations, most recently Pulitzer, Peabody, etc:
https://www.revealnews.org/awards/
https://awards.journalists.org/organizations/reveal/
Not sure how to properly propose this as a RS? Apeholder ( talk) 01:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Is [13] by Dr. Ursula B. Göhlich of the Naturhistorisches Museum in the Proceed. 8th Internat. Meeting Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution a reliable source for Cécile Mourer-Chauviré? Lopifalko raised some concerns but is unsure at Talk:Cécile Mourer-Chauviré, and I am now unsure too. They referred me here. Eostrix ( talk) 10:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
She significantly impacted paleornithological research in and out-side of Europe for the last 50 years and is in high demand as an expert and favored collaborator for researchers all over the world, but especially for the next generation of paleornithologists.-- MarioGom ( talk) 10:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Indymedia is an anarchist-oriented open publishing platform for "citizen journalism" and crowdsourced content. They have several chapters and local sites. It has been discussed just once in 2008: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 23#indymedia.
The site has been blocked in Germany for content that incites violence, and it is controversial in left-wing activist circles as well:
Every time I log onto activist news sites like Indymedia.org, which practice "open publishing," I’m confronted with a string of Jewish conspiracy theories about 9-11 and excerpts from the Protocol of the Elders of Zion.[14]
Now, I think this would quite clearly be unreliable as WP:SELFPUBLISHED, but the source is actually very much used in article space: indymedia.org (792 uses), indymedia.ie (151 uses), indymedia.org.uk (222 uses), indybay.org (209 uses). Do you reckon that a RfC and phasing out would be warranted? -- Pudeo ( talk) 07:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Certainly Indymedia journalism is a radicalway of sharing and selecting news. But it is not that much different fromestablished forms of journalism in the kind of problems, issues and editorialdiscussions it faces in the practice of everyday publishing.That said, it's reasonably clear that the vast majority of groups using the term, at least, wouldn't pass WP:RS for a variety of reasons - the converse of them being many scattered groups is that most of them individually lack reputations, even before you get to the fact that many of them just publish anything sent to them with only limited editorial control. This does mention that some have editorial boards that perform fact-checking, but, well, read for yourself:
These differing interpretations of the purpose of Indymedia were further reflected incollectives’ editorial policy. Despite being based on the premise of open publishing it has been necessary at times to edit some postings. Spam is sometimes removed in order to retain newswire quality. Additionally there is an element of fact-checking that occurs for postings. This is done by the websites editorial collectives when they feel it is appropriate, but more commonly is undertaken by other participants and contributors in the form of comments posted after each newswire submission.Big yikes on the last part. A lot of the academic coverage (eg. here) strikes me as something that would be good for establishing reputation (they treat it as a usable news source), but which makes it sound unusable due to the way it interacts with our policies; that said, I would generally want to look at the reputation and policies of individual Indiemedia collectives rather than blanket-removing all of them, though with the assumption that they have a hard climb to illustrate reputation, fact-checking, and editorial controls, as well as a sufficiently well-defined editorial collective to avoid being WP:USERGENERATED (which seems like something else that varies from group to group?) I do think that they are not always a WP:SPS (at least, the academic papers listed there seem to give the editorial collectives some degree of weight), and some of them have actual editorial-board fact-checking, but there's a lot of other concerning things. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Like all IMCs, Portland Indymedia hosts a website with an open publishing newswire to which anyone can post text, images, audio and video using the online publish form. Unlike a newspaper or other form of media, anyone is free to post their news and experiences (there are some exceptions, see the editorial policy. Articles posted to the site come from people in the community, and their words are never edited by IMC volunteers. The articles that are featured in the center column are taken right from the newswire, thus highlighting original content and reporting. This system empowers anyone to become the media for the purpose of sharing information and views that are blocked out or misrepresented by the corporate media; that is, to stand with the oppressed against the oppressors. - GretLomborg ( talk) 04:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Is The Conversation (website) considered a reliable source? Eg: [16]. I searched in WP:RS/P and the archives here but did not find anything relevant. Thank you in advance -- Signimu ( talk) 18:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps by looking at this in a different way we can have more constructive discussion. I think its a good idea to to have a committee review all the sources used this year, say in 1 or 2 categories, and come up with a short list of "most reliable sources". What's the problem with doing that? Nocturnalnow ( talk) 14:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Taking a wiki walk, I stumbled across some stange, hard to believe information sourced to "Celebitchy.com", which I then removed because It didn't seem like a reliable source. Seeing how it doesn't seem to have been discussed before, I'm now bringing the site here- should " Celebitchy.com" be considered a reliable source? Articles used in. 💵Money💵emoji💵 Talk💸 Help out at CCI! 15:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Celebitchy is a gossip and entertainment blog...
Celebitchy, LLC makes no claims that content is valid, accurate, or true.-- Ronz ( talk) 15:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
"a celebrity gossip site". It should generally be avoided per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTGOSSIP. We've previously blacklisted gossip blogs (such as Just Jared, mentioned above), so if editors are repeatedly adding Celebitchy to articles in an inappropriate way, a spam blacklist request may be warranted. — Newslinger talk 17:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
It's main page is here and there's a disclaimer here that says "Pakpedia is a Pakistan’s biggest Encyclopedia where you can find all the information in detail about Pakistan related to all the categories including personalities, locations, cities, government sectors, tourist places and many more. All the content provided in the articles has been taken from different sites as the articles are written with many references which you may check in the article so if you find that the content is wrong or the content is too old which needs correction or something too negative written about any personality or anything then you are most welcome to do tell us on the provided email and please give us maximum 72 hours for the correction." I see it's used for Khalil-ur-Rehman Qamar but I came here via Hassan Hayat. I guess while I'm here I should ask about Diva Magazine also. [17] Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Citation no. 49 in NordVPN#Tesonet_court_case cites an article at vpnpro.com ( https://vpnpro.com/blog/why-pwc-audit-of-nordvpn-logging-policy-is-a-big-deal/) which in my opinion sounds like a sponsored advertisement. The website also contains a large amount of irrelevant articles, which makes it appear to me like a paid promotional website. In my opinion, such a website shouldn't be considered a reliable source, since it puts paid content above the goal of creating an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldosfan ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This was added to the People's Mujahedin of Iran:
"UK Border Agency describes MEK in a 2009 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation"".
This was the source used for this: [18]
It just doesn't look right to me, so brining it here for your comments. Barca ( talk) 00:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
cult-like terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq(MEK or MKO).' so I'm inclined to see it less as an interjection by the UKBA and rather a transposition of text to restore context to the acronym being used. 199.116.171.94 ( talk) 07:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
A Stuff.co.nz article entitled 'I survived a Krishna cult' has been cited on the Science of Identity Foundation page by Localemediamonitor and 207.233.45.12.
The 'stuff' article is based on assertions by Rama das Ranson. He is obviously very troubled, so I hesitate to post an excerpt here that might subject him to ridicule. But a quick check of Ranson's website raises serious doubts about the suitability of this as a source. Humanengr ( talk) 19:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The Stuff article mentions Ranson's accusations and those of a Member of New Zealand's Parliament (which the article says were later retracted after a lawsuit) of cultism. These accusations may be given undue weight in our article's text, even though the Stuff.co.nz article meets WP:SECONDARY guidelines for a reliable secondary source."Former members of the group describe it as a cult."
Hi all. An interesting conundrum came up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ironclaw (2nd nomination). I found a doctoral theses published at NYU that relates to this AFD. Should it be considered reliable (since doctoral theses are peer reviewed by their faculty), and can it be used towards WP:SIGCOV? Thanks. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm checking WP:RS/P#Morning Star, which currently lists the MS as a "No consensus" source and cites that the New Statesman described it as "Britain's last communist newspaper". This seems rather to understate things - it's actually the house organ of the Communist Party of Britain. It's linked from their site. It lists its editorial policy as being in accord with their manifesto " Britain's Road to Socialism", and that manifesto states "On the economic, political and ideological fronts, the Morning Star as the daily paper of the labour movement and the left, with its editorial policy based on Britain’s Road to Socialism, plays an indispensable role in informing, educating and helping to mobilise the forces for progress and revolution.".
The MS itself states that "while the Morning Star’s editorial line may be guided via an annual democratic endorsement of Communist Party of Britain strategy document Britain’s Road to Socialism ... the paper is in fact a co-op owned by its readers for its readers", and describes itself as "often a lone voice reporting the stories that other media refuse to touch", which has WP:N implications. [20]
I'm not necessarily arguing for a change in its status, it's certainly possible to cite it with caution, but maybe the list entry should be updated to reflect this? Vashti ( talk) 11:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
"The People’s Press Printing Society is now run by a management committee that includes representatives of nine national trade unions, each of which contributes £20,000 to the paper’s costs and "they wouldn’t do that if it was a communist front". Griffiths maintains that the involvement of non-communists is "genuine and substantial", though he concedes that the relationship between paper and party remains strong: he was in William Rust House on the same day as I was, to attend the monthly meeting of the CPB’s political committee. Chacko is also a committee member and he was attending the meeting, though Griffiths said he wouldn’t be "taking orders"".
Burrobert ( talk) 15:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Elizium23 ( talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Arguments on both sides varied subtly, but to me it's clear that there is no consensus to halt RfCs at this time. Prominent support votes included concerns that A) RFCs on reliability assessments of particular sources have been mass-produced without prior informal discussions occurring beforehand as advised in WP:RFCBEFORE, and B) that "deprecation" is used too excessively. While both arguments are valid to certain extents, in the end the oppose votes are more well-formulated. The vast majority of voters opposing such a measure ( Newslinger being the most prominent) present arguments that all basically boil down to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, as well as concerns that such a measure would, at best, undermine the very purpose of RfCs. Nonetheless, given that even a relative majority in the opposition sympathized with the support on the two aforementioned key supportive arguments, overall I'd say that there while there is a somewhat strong consensus for discouraging RfCs for any source whose reliability has not been previously discussed on RSN or elsewhere as per WP:RFCBEFORE as well as considerable consensus for exercising caution when nominating a source for deprecation (applying common sense where necessary), there is absolutely no reasonable consensus to implement a moratorium at this time. ToThAc ( talk) 22:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that the word generally means "usually" in this context, not "always". The general classification of a source is only the starting point for evaluating reliability, and specific uses of a source can always be brought to this noticeboard for a more targeted review. If a source frequently publishes articles outside of its circle of competence, like in your example about science and religion, then the source should not be considered generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 01:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
"for factual reporting"qualifier after
"Generally reliable". If this is not descriptive enough, then I agree that it would be helpful to provide more detailed definitions of each option in RfCs of this type. — Newslinger talk 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
" Generally reliable"has been changed to
" Generally reliable in its areas of expertise"in WP:RSP § Legend. — Newslinger talk 14:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"include at least one concrete example of an assertion of fact") suggested in the sub-question. While we should encourage editors to provide examples of how a source is being used, a question on the general reliability of a source shouldn't be unduly focused on one specific use of that source. — Newslinger talk 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
"opinion pieces are okay". See Wikipedia:Citing sources for what reference means.
Even
deprecated sources qualify for the
WP:ABOUTSELF exception, which allows their use for uncontroversial self-descriptions in the rare case that they are
WP:DUE and covered by reliable sources. The
reliable sources guideline is being honored in all of these RfCs, because
context matters in each of the four options. (The only exception is the
CoinDesk RfC, and I opposed the proposal in that RfC's statement because this criterion was not met.)
WP:DEPS defers to
WP:RS and explicitly states, "
reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others"
. If there is any confusion about what deprecation means, a link to
WP:DEPS will clarify.
When an editor asks about a low-quality source, we should be able to say that it is questionable, and that it generally shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Repeatedly debating the inclusion of poor sources that have earned abysmal reputations for repeatedly publishing false or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, or pseudoscience is a waste of the community's time. RfCs of this type allow us to make decisive evaluations resulting in consensus that endures until there is evidence that the source's reputation has changed. Consensus is a policy. — Newslinger talk 21:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Attributed opinions of people other than the author were considered in the RFC and were included in the ban (IAR notwithstanding). Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here.)
" its use as a reference"should not be
" generally prohibited". Overturning the current consensus would require a third RfC on the Daily Mail, which is not advisable right now because it's highly unlikely to succeed.
Nobody is suggesting that
WP:RS should be overridden; the type of RfC being discussed here uses
WP:V and
WP:RS to identify
questionable sources for what they are: "
generally unreliable"
. —
Newslinger
talk 08:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"the closers said attributed opinions are okay"is extremely misleading, since it conflates WP:RSOPINION (which the Daily Mail does not qualify for, because it's not considered a reliable source) with WP:ABOUTSELF (which is a restrictive exemption granted to all questionable sources and self-published sources). — Newslinger talk 20:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"opinion pieces", but the ones eligible for WP:ABOUTSELF
"were not considered in the RFC". — Newslinger talk 00:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Finally, a number of editors argued that other publications were similarly, or more, unreliable than the Daily Mail. We note that the unreliability of a different source is a reason to remove that source, and is irrelevant here; regardless, these other publications are outside the scope of this RfC, and if there are lingering concerns about other tabloids or tabloids in general, a separate RfC is necessary to assess current consensus about them.
"tabloid meriting removal". WP:RFC lists a number of accepted uses for an RfC:
"Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content."The type of RfC under debate solicits input on whether a source generally meets the requirements of WP:V (a policy) and WP:RS (a guideline). Outside of the instructions in WP:RFCST, declaring whether an RfC format is or isn't
"normal behaviour"for other editors is excessively bureaucratic, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. — Newslinger talk 20:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"lingering concerns"regarding a wide variety of sources, including tabloids. One of the goals of these RfCs are to identify low-quality sources like InfoWars ( RfC), Breitbart News ( RfC) (which you defended), and Occupy Democrats ( RfC) as sources that should be discouraged from use. — Newslinger talk 00:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
(UTC)
Some editors have suggested restrictions on when an RfC on the general reliability of a source would be appropriate, as well as changes to the commonly used 4-option RfC format. For more coordinated discussion, please list your suggestion in a new subheading under this "Workshop" section, so other editors can comment on them individually. — Newslinger talk 21:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I still oppose option 4 of the "commonly used" format. In my view an RfC on reliability is only appropriate if there has not been a discussion here which generated clear consensus, or if there has been discussion scattered around Wikipedia which needs centralising in an easily referable place. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Alternate proposal - define and restrict General Reliability RFCs to cases where they actually make sense:
Alsee ( talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
You shouldn't open threads about a source unless there is a specific content dispute. You shouldn't open a thread about the universal reliability of a source unless there is a preponderance of threads dealing with specific content disputes where they have decided the source is unreliable. GMG talk 23:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I suggest discouraging any repetitive objections to such general-purpose discussions and RFCs that aren't clearly backed up by whatever outcome we reach here. If there's no consensus to remove them, or if we've agreed to allow them under certain circumstances, then posting near-identical comments to several of them at once objecting to them in identical terms, like this is WP:POINTy. (Not to call that one set of edits out - it's the most recent example, but others have done similar things in the past.) The reality is that such discussions have been accepted practice for a long time, and absent an actual RFC against them or some other indication that that practice has changed, trying to shout them down by responding to all of them at once with identical objections isn't constructive. The appropriate way to halt a common practice you find objectionable is to first try and establish a centralized consensus against it, not to try and force through an objection that lacks such clear consensus through disruptively repeating your interpretation as fact even when after it's failed to reach consensus. Posting identical "bad RFC!" messages on a whole bunch of discussions at once isn't the way to move forwards, especially if there isn't really a clear consensus backing that objection up. Merely having a strong opposition to particular sorts of discussions, or strongly believing that they're against some policy, isn't sufficient justification for disrupting them like that if there's no clear consensus backing you up. Obviously this would just be a general guideline - people could still object to individual ones they feel are particularly unhelpful, but mass-copy-pasting an otherwise off-topic objection to every single RFC of a particular type that you think we shouldn't be having ought to require at least some consensus to back you up. -- Aquillion ( talk) 01:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome of this RFC. This proposal is only even possible if 1 of the 3 outcomes is arrived at... Galestar ( talk) 04:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
...that aren't clearly backed up by whatever outcome we reach here.Most of the proposals above would allow them under certain circumstances, so I worded it broadly in the sense of ie. obviously comments reminding people of a clear outcome here would be fine. (And, obviously, you are incorrect about 1 of the 3; there's also the situation where none of the options reach a clear consensus.) Nonetheless, I'll remove the first bit to avoid confusion. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Support as per proposer. Bacondrum ( talk) 23:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
"repetitive objections to such general-purpose discussions and RFCs". — Newslinger talk 11:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Appears to be just a simple yet grave misunderstanding of how WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is applied to arguments. ToThAc ( talk) 01:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The problem I see with blanket rules about what is and is not reliable is that it replaces using one's brain to figure it out. Effectively, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS carries no weight. See this discussion where I was in effect told that it was inappropriate to actually examine the evidence in the various sources and come to an evidence-based conclusion, which is exactly what WP:CONTEXTMATTERS implies one should do. Instead, the accepted thing appears to be to blindly follow certain rules about what is and is not reliable. And that makes people cynical about Wikipedia. Therefore, I suggest that what needs to happen is that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS needs to become policy that is actually used, rather than merely a "policy" statement that sits there but doesn't carry any weight in a decision about what is reliable and what isn't. Adoring nanny ( talk) 01:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
"The appropriateness of any source depends on the context."In the same paragraph, it defines the reliability spectrum:
"The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states,
"In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."Reliability depends on context, but some sources are more reliable in general than others. — Newslinger talk 01:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
"fairly [represent] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"( WP:DUE). WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is not a trump card that allows us to elevate a fringe opinion that is not supported by other reliable sources. If a person is convicted in court, and nearly all reliable sources report that they are guilty, it would be improper to grant a false balance to the minority perspective of a news reporter who claims that they are innocent, when that perspective is not corroborated by other reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 20:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Is NewsGram.com reliable so that it can be used in a BLP article? Recently added in this though it doesn't serve any purpose as of now. If it is reliable, then some important things in the Wiki article can be sourced from it. The editor-in-chief is some Munish Raizada [23], his twitter handle. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 15:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Does this journal look reliable? ∯WBG converse 10:38, 20 October 2019 (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 270 | ← | Archive 273 | Archive 274 | Archive 275 | Archive 276 | Archive 277 | → | Archive 280 |
Please consider whether the NYT article should have its Epstein coverage demoted to "reliable but not independent" based on some or all of the following points is sufficient sourcing for the claim highlighted in point #5. (Striking original request per Newslinger’s comment).
petrarchan47
คุ
ก 00:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Bold
Bold
Bold
___
1) NPR calls out NYT for dropping the ball on Epstein coverage
NPR describes how 3 media outlets whitewashed Epstein coverage for various reasons. One of them was the New York Times: How the media fell short on Epstein
___
2) Current NYT CEO Mark Thompson & the BBC pedophile scandal and alleged coverup
Extended content
|
---|
|
___
3) Joi Ito - NYT BOD (2012-2019)
MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito and colleagues concealed Epstein donations and affiliation with the program. Ito knew Epstein donations were disallowed and created a coverup at MIT of the source and amount of donations. He also sought Epstein donations of $1.7 million for personal projects. Ito stepped down (but was not fired) from the NYT board of directors, as well as several other boards and the MIT Media Lab, on the heels of the New Yorker piece.
Apparently the NYT had the scoop but sat on it. WaPost: "Before Ito’s resignations, prominent women in the media world such as Xeni Jardin had spoken out on social media against his ties to Epstein"
Xeni: "I told the [New York Times] everything. So did whistleblowers I was in touch with inside MIT and Edge. They printed none of the most damning truths..."
___
4) Soft, almost romantic description of Epstein's abuse:
5) Possibly inaccurate coverage of Epstein-related court documents
Two thousand pages of previously sealed court documents were released the night before Epstein was declared dead. The New York Times makes a claim that no one else ( except Alan Dershowitz and Ghislaine Maxwell) has, a claim now mirrored in our Jeffrey Epstein article:
NYT "The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue."
Wikipedia: "The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false."
The claim was made midway through a fluff piece about Trump-fueled conspiracy theories involving Bill Clinton. Besides this brief mention, the NYT has not reported on the documents. WP editors have taken its statement to mean that Guiffre admitted Clinton was not on the island, contrary to her earlier testimony. They have decided that because it was printed in the Times, it must be true, and lack of corroborating reports, and the presence of contradictory reports, are seen as irrelevant because the NYT is considered to be reliable.
In transcripts of Giuffre’s deposition released by the court Friday, Bill Clinton‘s relationship with Epstein is expounded upon. Giuffre alleges that Clinton was around when she was with Epstein on his island. Giuffre claims that she “flew to the Caribbean” with Epstein when she was 17, and that while she was there, Maxwell bragged that she picked Clinton up in a "black helicopter that Jeffrey [Epstein] bought her". Giuffre further says that she had spent time with Clinton and that while his secret service agents were there, they weren’t "where [everyone] was eating." ... While the details of the alleged helicopter trip were, thus, unclear, Giuffre’s other statements in the deposition, if true, confirm Bill Clinton was on Jeffrey Epstein’s island while underage girls were present. This runs contradictory to Clinton’s claims that he has never been to Jeffrey Epstein’s private island.
The documents say Guiffre was directed to have sex with former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, among other powerful men. NYT mentions this nowhere in its reporting. Those who do cover the Richardson allegations include but are not limited to:
Most media did not mention Clinton at all; I've included the text from those that did because it shows how vastly different the NYT report is from all other accounts. No other media mentions any lie or misstatement whatsoever from Guiffre in their coverage:
Extended content
|
---|
|
Thanks for your help. petrarchan47 คุ ก 22:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
"benched [correspondent Landon Thomas Jr.] instantly from any professional contact with Epstein"when they discovered his conflict of interest, and then
"By early January 2019, Thomas was gone from the Times". The NPR piece condemns only the correspondent (Landon Thomas Jr.), but not the NYT as a whole. I would exercise caution when using Thomas's coverage of Epstein (e.g. his 2008 profile of Epstein) in any source, not just the NYT. The NYT's rapid removal of Thomas is a positive indicator of its reputation.
"Thompson departed the BBC before public exposure of the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal and is not noted in the BBC chronology of the unfolding coverage". A short mention of Thompson's media responses might be warranted in the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal article if due, but this scandal involves the BBC personality Jimmy Savile, and is unrelated to the NYT's coverage of Epstein.
"The woman said her life was permanently scarred by the sexual abuse that started when she was 14."Your quote, "the massages quickly became sexual", does not exist in the article. The actual quote was
"That first massage quickly turned sexual", and the next paragraph elaborated that
'she returned to Mr. Epstein’s home “countless times” until she was 17, with the visits becoming more frequent and the abuse becoming more severe.'The NYT's coverage here is in line with the descriptions from other reliable sources.
Video Deposition of Virginia Giuffre, Volume II Examination by Ms. Menninger (pages 1910–1917)
|
---|
7 Q Okay. You have mentioned a journalist by 8 the name of Sharon Churcher. 9 A Yes. 10 Q You are aware that Sharon Churcher 11 published news stories about you? 12 A Yes. 13 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 14 Go ahead. 15 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Is anything that you 16 have read in Sharon Churcher's news stories about you 17 untrue? 18 A I think Sharon did print some things that 19 I think she elaborated or maybe misheard. But, I 20 mean, if you have a specific document to show me, I'd 21 love to look at it and read it and tell you what I 22 think. 23 Q Is there anything, as you sit here today, 24 that you know of that Sharon Churcher printed about 25 you that is not true? 1 A Not off the top of my head. If you show 2 me, like, a news clipping article or something, I can 3 definitely read it for you. 4 Q Is there anything that you know of that 5 Sharon Churcher has printed about Ghislaine Maxwell 6 that is not true? 7 A No, not off -- no, not off the top of my 8 head. 9 Q Is there anything that you recall saying 10 to Sharon Churcher that she then printed something 11 different than what you had said to her? 12 A Yeah, I've read stuff. I mean, I just -- 13 I can't remember what, but I read something that I 14 think was, Oh, she got that wrong. I can't remember 15 an exact example off the top of my head. 16 Q Did you ever complain to Sharon Churcher 17 about things that she got wrong? 18 A I didn't see a point. I might have, but 19 I -- I didn't see a point really because it's already 20 printed, you know. 21 Q You had a fairly voluminous set of 22 communications with Sharon Churcher by e-mail, 23 correct? 24 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 25 A Voluminous, like a lot of them? 1 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Yes. 2 A Yes. 3 Q And during any of those communications, do 4 you know whether she printed things about you after 5 you had any of those communications? 6 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 7 A I don't know. I know a lot of stuff was 8 printed, and I never really stopped to read who 9 printed the article, or wrote the article, I should 10 say. Sorry. 11 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Okay. I'll show you 12 Defendant's Exhibit 7. 13 (Exhibit 7 marked.) 14 THE DEPONENT: Thank you. 15 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) I'll let you read 16 through the statements on the first page there, and 17 if there is anything that is not absolutely true, 18 just put a check by it and we'll come back to it. 19 A It's not very clear how she wrote it. "I 20 flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine 21 Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge black 22 helicopter that Jeffrey had bought her." 23 That wasn't an eyewitness statement. 24 Like, I didn't see her do it. Ghislaine was the one 25 who told me about that; that she's the one who flew 1 Bill. 2 Q All right. If you just want to put a 3 check by it, then we'll just come back and talk about 4 each one. 5 A Okay. 6 Q Just to move things along. 7 A Okay. I have made three checkmarks. 8 Q All right. 9 MS. MCCAWLEY: And I just -- before you 10 continue, I just want to identify for the record, 11 since this doesn't have any identifiers on it, are 12 you representing that these are statements from 13 Sharon Churcher? 14 MS. MENNINGER: I'm not representing 15 anything. I'm asking the witness questions about 16 these statements. I asked her is anything on here 17 not true. That's all I asked her. 18 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) So which ones did you 19 put checkmarks by, Ms. Giuffre? 20 A I'd have been -- I'm sorry. "I'd have 21 been about 17 at the time. I flew to the Caribbean 22 with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick 23 up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey had 24 bought her." 25 Q Okay. And what else did you put a check 1 by? 2 A "I used to get frightened flying with her 3 but Bill had the Secret Service with him and I 4 remember him talking about what a good job" -- 5 sorry -- "job she did." 6 Q Okay. And what else did you put a check 7 by? 8 A "Donald Trump was also a good friend of 9 Jeffrey's. He didn't partake in any sex with any of 10 us but he flirted with me. He'd laugh and tell 11 Jeffrey, 'you've got the life.'" 12 Q Other than the three you've just 13 mentioned -- 14 A Yeah. 15 Q -- everything else on here is absolutely 16 accurate? 17 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 18 A Yes. Well, to the best of my 19 recollection, yes. 20 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) All right. What is 21 inaccurate about, "I'd have been about 17 at the 22 time. I flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then 23 Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge 24 black helicopter that Jeffrey had bought her"? 25 A Because it makes it kind of sound like an 1 eyewitness thing. 2 Q Okay. Did you say that statement to 3 Sharon Churcher? 4 A I said to Sharon that Ghislaine told me 5 that she flew Bill in the heli- -- the black 6 helicopter that Jeffrey bought her, and I just wanted 7 to clarify that I didn't actually see her do that. I 8 heard from Ghislaine that she did that. 9 Q You heard that from Ghislaine, and then 10 you reported to Sharon Churcher that you had heard 11 that from Ghislaine. 12 A Correct. 13 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 14 A I heard a lot of things from Ghislaine 15 that sounded too true -- too outrageous to be true, 16 but you never knew what to believe, so... 17 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Okay. And after 18 Sharon Churcher printed what she said you said, did 19 you complain to her that it was inaccurate? 20 A I might have verbally with her, but again, 21 I didn't see a point in making a hissy over it 22 because what was done was done. She had already 23 printed. 24 Q What was inaccurate about, "I used to get 25 frightened flying with her but Bill" said -- "had the 1 Secret Service with him and I remember him talking 2 about what a good job she did"? 3 A I just don't remember saying that to her. 4 I don't remember saying I remember him talking about 5 what a good job she did. 6 Q All right. 7 A I just don't remember that at all. 8 Q Okay. And I guess, just to be clear, my 9 questions wasn't do you remember saying this to 10 Sharon Churcher; my question is, is that statement 11 accurate? 12 MS. MCCAWLEY: Well, objection. 13 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did you used to get 14 frightened flying with her? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Okay. Did Bill have the Secret Service 17 with him? 18 A They were there, but not like on the -- 19 not where we were eating. 20 Q Do you remember Bill talking about what a 21 good job she did? 22 A I don't remember that. 23 Q So what is inaccurate about that 24 statement? 25 A I just -- it's inaccurate because I don't 1 remember him talking about what a good job she did. 2 I don't remember that. 3 Q Does it inaccurately suggest that Bill had 4 the Secret Service with him on a helicopter? 5 MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection. 6 A Well, not being an eyewitness to it, I 7 wouldn't be able to tell you. I can't tell you what 8 I don't know. 9 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) And do you believe you 10 said that statement to Sharon Churcher? 11 A I mean, Sharon and I talked a lot, and if 12 she misheard me or just wrote it in the way that she 13 thought she should, I have no control over that. So 14 I'm not too sure. 15 Q Did she record your interviews? 16 A Some of them. Some of them she didn't. I 17 mean, we, like -- we, like, met for like a week, and 18 we spent a lot of time together, and then even after 19 that we just continued, like, kind of a friendship. |
"The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue", appears to assert the first conclusion with the key words
"claim she made".
"The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue.") is not enough to substantiate the exceptional claim that Giuffre made a false statement. I can't be certain that the NYT was wrong, since the NYT article doesn't specify which
"earlier claim"Giuffre allegedly made, and because I only performed a text search on the Epstein documents instead of a thorough review of the entire 2024-page PDF. However, if I were a reporter, I would not accuse Giuffre of making a false statement based on the excerpt of the transcript I posted above, which is the most relevant portion of the documents I was able to find through a text search. — Newslinger talk 01:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false; a claim being false does not mean it was a lie, especially given that the context makes it very easy for Giuffre to have simply been mistaken. Furthermore, the statement that she was mistaken is not exceptional - numerous other sources in the article support that, eg.
The Secret Service told Fox News in 2016 it had no record of agents being on the island. Giuffre claims Maxwell told her she flew Clinton to the island on her helicopter, although she conceded, "I heard a lot of things from Ghislaine that sounded too true – too outrageous to be true, but you never knew what to believe." Maxwell denied Guiffre's claim that Clinton visited the island.In fact, it is Giuffre's accusation that is WP:EXCEPTIONAL here. Furthermore, reporting such an exceptional claim about a living figure without covering exculpatory reporting in a high-quality WP:RS clearly violates WP:BLP. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The NYT may not respond at all, so Aquillion's decision to remove the details about Clinton until the NYT responds is untenable. He is insisting that the NYT piece must be mentioned if the claim about Clinton and the island is mentioned. I compromised with the following:
This edit was reverted by Soiblanga who states that there is no ambiguity in the NYT statement, contrary to what Newslinger and Slim Virgin state above. He also states that Guiffre's claim "has been exhaustively debunked".
I would appreciate some help as I can't seem to reason with editors and don't quite know what else to do. petrarchan47 คุ ก 03:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I would appreciate some help as I can't seem to reason with editors and don't quite know what else to do.Oh. The. Irony. soibangla ( talk) 18:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I arrive at this looong discussion belatedly and have read parts of it, primarily related to the NYT sentence reporting unambiguously that Guiffre later acknowledged her earlier claim Clinton visited Epstein's island was untrue, and here's my bottom line. None of us are in the position of second-guessing reliable sources on a selected basis, especially if it debunks a years-long narrative that some may have embraced as established fact, only to see it debunked years later, and they just can't accept it. "A lie gets halfway around the world while the truth is still getting its shoes on," and now the truth has finally caught up to the lie. The NYT is one of the best sources of information on the planet, and that's not by accident: it's because they employ seasoned, vetted journalists/editors who catch things others miss, or others choose not to report for reasons that may include space/time constraints. The fact no one else reported that particular nugget of information does not mean the NYT got it wrong. The moment we start second-guessing highly reliable sources on a selected basis is the moment we step into a slippery slope resulting in every reliable source falling into question, until we conclude nothing is reliable anymore, and at that point Wikipedia might as well just shut down. soibangla ( talk) 18:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
an earlier claim, they unambiguously state that one of the claims she made was untrue. They do not, however, state
acknowledged her earlier claim, as you have stated above, and that is why you're not understanding this issue.
The insistence on keeping the Clinton bit out of the article unless we have (or can create) a rebuttal is a NPOV violation. I've opened a thread here. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a request for comment that aims to resolve the above content dispute. If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein § RfC: Virginia Giuffre and Bill Clinton. — Newslinger talk 21:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like to know if Halopedia would be considered a reliable source when it comes to Halo-related articles. It isn't currently cited in any article, but I know that among the Halo community, it is considered to be very accurate. Jeb3 Talk at me here What I've Done 12:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
In the last comment in this section (archived while I calmed down), Guy said "Well that's a remarkable bit of selective reading: you choose to interpret the replies in a way that gives you permission to reinsert the trivial crap back into the article." If that's a concession, it's a rather strange one—mixed with abuse.
Assuming it's not a concession allowing a modified roll-back to before the first of Guy's September edits, it's time for Guy and Scope_creep and Pavlor to provide a good faith explanation of why the Retrospect (software) article as of 19:11, 12 September 2019 "was bloated with trivia", "really horrible", a "product manual", and "a marketing piece". To focus the discussion, I've done some appropriate rough counting of items in that article and in two WP articles about competing enterprise client-server backup applications—plus FYI item counts for a competing personal "push" backup application.
The Retrospect (software) article as of 19:11, 12 September 2019 had 46 mentions of distinct features in 1.2 screen-pages. 12 of the cites for those features were to first-party references; these were to 2 User's Guides, a cumulative Release Notes, and a Web-linked collection of Knowledge Base articles. There never was a version history section; the Fall 2016 version was historically-structured with some how-to, but JohnInDC eliminated all that in Fall 2017.
The Backup Exec article as of 00:14, 9 October 2019 had 49 mentions of distinct features in 1.6 screen-pages. 36 of the cites for those features were to first-party references—only one of which was cited more than once. There's a version history section, but it only contains release numbers and dates.
The NetBackup article as of 16:59, 3 September 2019 had 38 mentions of distinct features in 1.0 screen-pages. All 16 of the cites for those features were to first-party references—only three of which were cited more than once. There's a version history section, but it only contains release numbers and dates.
FYI the Acronis True Image article as of 02:47, 27 September 2019 had 30 mentions of distinct features in 1.25 screen-pages. 7 of the cites for those features were to first-party references—none of which was cited more than once. There's a version history section that includes mentions of features, so I've counted its length as part of the feature screen-pages. As I pointed out to Scope_creep early in the now-archived Discussion of a September 2017 RfC ( here's the diff, but it includes earlier and later sections whose comments were interspersed), he may have considered this "an ideal article to determine how to structure this [Retrospect] one"—but "Acronis is a 'push' backup system in which each individual conceptual 'client' pushes data to a backup 'host' (which may not be a full-fledged computer) at its non-'host'-controlled option". That fact explains why the Acronis True Image article, which is about a personal backup application, lists fewer (sparsely-referenced) features than the above-discussed 3 articles about enterprise client-server backup applications.
The 4 paragraphs directly above show that the Retrospect article listed about the same number of "trivial" features—mostly the same ones with better-linked names—as the articles for the other two enterprise client-server backup applications. I put in the better-linked names at the insistence of Scope_creep in Fall 2017; he said using the developer's own feature names was "marketing". IMHO the other reason the feature sections of the Retrospect came across as "marketing" is because—greatly shortened at the insistence of JohnInDC in fall 2017—I included brief descriptions of the features. By contrast, the other two client-server articles don't include any descriptions; almost all the links for feature names in those two articles are ones I added myself in January 2019.
The Retrospect article actually had an "anti-marketing" item—staying within the limits of WP:NPOV—in the first and third paragraphs of the History section until Guy deleted it. The Windows variant of the application suffers to this day from the absence of a true Administration Console, which the Mac variant and the other two enterprise client-server applications have, but there's no second-party reference that says so. I used to have a link to a section of the Windows Vista article that explains the absence, but that was deleted in Fall 2017 and probably violates WP:Synthesis. Since I intend to put the features sections back into the Retrospect article with no first-party references (at the cost of two or three feature items), that "anti-marketing" item will stay out because its references were a Retrospect Knowledge Base article and the Retrospect Windows cumulative Release Notes (improvements to a poor Console substitute).
Can anyone point to a Wikipedia rule that says a specification of a software application's non-trivial features is ipso-facto "a "product manual" or a "marketing piece"? Can anyone specify which are the trivial features I listed in the Retrospect article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DovidBenAvraham ( talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I cut the article by about 0.5 screen-pages, and the combined Standard features" section by 0.3 screen-pages. It's still in my Sandbox; I'll move it Sunday night when I have time to write an explanatory comment on the article's Talk page. DovidBenAvraham ( talk) 15:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I think there is an undisclosed Wikipedia:Conflict of interest here. Judging by the editing pattern it seems like Ch.Davis ( talk · contribs) is Paul Andrews (producer) or someone closley associated. All the edits have beens self-promotion. // Liftarn ( talk) 11:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I notice a few record label articles using https://labelsbase.net/ as a source for artist lists. I noticed the risk of incorrect listings on the websites just today after the recent redirect overwrite of Nicole Bus, which previously redirected to Bitbird based on LabelsBase, after which I could not find any reliable sources establishing the artist's connection with the record label. A quick look at the website's About page shows the possibility that the website falls under WP:UGC. Other articles using this source include NoCopyrightSounds, Stmpd Rcrds, and Musical Freedom. See also Special:Search/Labelsbase. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted almost identical WP:REFSPAM from at least a dozen IP/users in the last month or two. XLinkBot was given the parameter a couple of days ago and has reverted a dozen or so SPAs with one-edit accounts. General M/O is to add an unnecessary WP:REFSPAM with an edit summary like: "adding a reference for the Job Title / Company Name". There's often already a perfectly valid reference there. There may, I suppose, be occasions where this is a valid source for a reference, and there are a few hundred existing links, but I haven't seen any occasions where it's an irreplaceable, reliable source, and this looks like a campaign to use us to drive traffic to the site. They are a commercial company who makes money out of selling access to their database
Beetstra raises the valid question as to whether the spamming is a "joe-job". Perhaps, but a pretty determined one if that's the case - and for what reason? Determined competitor? Ex-employee with a grudge and a lot of spare time?
We decided that bringing it here for an overview on how we view these links was the best plan. -- Begoon 06:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
also note that their content is a paid subscription service, so it's behind a paywall.Zoominfo acquired and maintains its database by copying data from the internet using a proprietary web crawler called NextGenSearchBot, [1] analyzing the copied data to extract information, and storing the information in a database. [2]
References
"copying data from the internet using a proprietary web crawler called NextGenSearchBot, analyzing the copied data to extract information, and storing the information in a database"then they quite probably got a decent amount of it from wikipedia in the first place. Now they are spamming links here to drive traffic back to their paid service? Hmm.... Doesn't sound very "reliable" to me... -- Begoon 08:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Not an RS, and maybe deprecate. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Should The Western Journal be deprecated? Or listed as generally unreliable? Or something else? X1\ ( talk) 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
For the WesternJournal.com, see earlier Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#Western Journal, and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Western Journal for comments on The Western Journal's reputation. Note: I have only been in a previous "rating", and haven't kept up on potential process changes here. X1\ ( talk) 22:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
westernjournal.com/corrections
section? If they don't correct the articles themselves, a separate page will often be ignored.
X1\ (
talk) 21:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Bellingcat - please can we ensure this site is not taken as a credible source on WP? This outlet is funded by The
National Endowment for Democracy - a right-wing corporate think tank who essentially help the CIA and other western nations to overthrow other countries that don't allow themselves to be bullied by the WTO and IMF. Nothing less than propaganda and anyone accepting funding from them has seriously tainted any credibility they already had. Here's an e.g. from
Consortium News (the outlet that broke the Watergate scandal before someone automatically assumes "they can't be credible because I've never heard of them")
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/28/the-dirty-hand-of-the-national-endowment-for-democracy-in-venezuela/
Apeholder (
talk) 00:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Please could we consider Reveal News ( http://www.revealnews.org)? They are an online outlet but also air their radio show / podcast on various radio stations across the USA. They have been around since 1977 and have won a truly staggering amount of awards and nominations, most recently Pulitzer, Peabody, etc:
https://www.revealnews.org/awards/
https://awards.journalists.org/organizations/reveal/
Not sure how to properly propose this as a RS? Apeholder ( talk) 01:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Is [13] by Dr. Ursula B. Göhlich of the Naturhistorisches Museum in the Proceed. 8th Internat. Meeting Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution a reliable source for Cécile Mourer-Chauviré? Lopifalko raised some concerns but is unsure at Talk:Cécile Mourer-Chauviré, and I am now unsure too. They referred me here. Eostrix ( talk) 10:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
She significantly impacted paleornithological research in and out-side of Europe for the last 50 years and is in high demand as an expert and favored collaborator for researchers all over the world, but especially for the next generation of paleornithologists.-- MarioGom ( talk) 10:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Indymedia is an anarchist-oriented open publishing platform for "citizen journalism" and crowdsourced content. They have several chapters and local sites. It has been discussed just once in 2008: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 23#indymedia.
The site has been blocked in Germany for content that incites violence, and it is controversial in left-wing activist circles as well:
Every time I log onto activist news sites like Indymedia.org, which practice "open publishing," I’m confronted with a string of Jewish conspiracy theories about 9-11 and excerpts from the Protocol of the Elders of Zion.[14]
Now, I think this would quite clearly be unreliable as WP:SELFPUBLISHED, but the source is actually very much used in article space: indymedia.org (792 uses), indymedia.ie (151 uses), indymedia.org.uk (222 uses), indybay.org (209 uses). Do you reckon that a RfC and phasing out would be warranted? -- Pudeo ( talk) 07:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Certainly Indymedia journalism is a radicalway of sharing and selecting news. But it is not that much different fromestablished forms of journalism in the kind of problems, issues and editorialdiscussions it faces in the practice of everyday publishing.That said, it's reasonably clear that the vast majority of groups using the term, at least, wouldn't pass WP:RS for a variety of reasons - the converse of them being many scattered groups is that most of them individually lack reputations, even before you get to the fact that many of them just publish anything sent to them with only limited editorial control. This does mention that some have editorial boards that perform fact-checking, but, well, read for yourself:
These differing interpretations of the purpose of Indymedia were further reflected incollectives’ editorial policy. Despite being based on the premise of open publishing it has been necessary at times to edit some postings. Spam is sometimes removed in order to retain newswire quality. Additionally there is an element of fact-checking that occurs for postings. This is done by the websites editorial collectives when they feel it is appropriate, but more commonly is undertaken by other participants and contributors in the form of comments posted after each newswire submission.Big yikes on the last part. A lot of the academic coverage (eg. here) strikes me as something that would be good for establishing reputation (they treat it as a usable news source), but which makes it sound unusable due to the way it interacts with our policies; that said, I would generally want to look at the reputation and policies of individual Indiemedia collectives rather than blanket-removing all of them, though with the assumption that they have a hard climb to illustrate reputation, fact-checking, and editorial controls, as well as a sufficiently well-defined editorial collective to avoid being WP:USERGENERATED (which seems like something else that varies from group to group?) I do think that they are not always a WP:SPS (at least, the academic papers listed there seem to give the editorial collectives some degree of weight), and some of them have actual editorial-board fact-checking, but there's a lot of other concerning things. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Like all IMCs, Portland Indymedia hosts a website with an open publishing newswire to which anyone can post text, images, audio and video using the online publish form. Unlike a newspaper or other form of media, anyone is free to post their news and experiences (there are some exceptions, see the editorial policy. Articles posted to the site come from people in the community, and their words are never edited by IMC volunteers. The articles that are featured in the center column are taken right from the newswire, thus highlighting original content and reporting. This system empowers anyone to become the media for the purpose of sharing information and views that are blocked out or misrepresented by the corporate media; that is, to stand with the oppressed against the oppressors. - GretLomborg ( talk) 04:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Is The Conversation (website) considered a reliable source? Eg: [16]. I searched in WP:RS/P and the archives here but did not find anything relevant. Thank you in advance -- Signimu ( talk) 18:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps by looking at this in a different way we can have more constructive discussion. I think its a good idea to to have a committee review all the sources used this year, say in 1 or 2 categories, and come up with a short list of "most reliable sources". What's the problem with doing that? Nocturnalnow ( talk) 14:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Taking a wiki walk, I stumbled across some stange, hard to believe information sourced to "Celebitchy.com", which I then removed because It didn't seem like a reliable source. Seeing how it doesn't seem to have been discussed before, I'm now bringing the site here- should " Celebitchy.com" be considered a reliable source? Articles used in. 💵Money💵emoji💵 Talk💸 Help out at CCI! 15:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Celebitchy is a gossip and entertainment blog...
Celebitchy, LLC makes no claims that content is valid, accurate, or true.-- Ronz ( talk) 15:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
"a celebrity gossip site". It should generally be avoided per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTGOSSIP. We've previously blacklisted gossip blogs (such as Just Jared, mentioned above), so if editors are repeatedly adding Celebitchy to articles in an inappropriate way, a spam blacklist request may be warranted. — Newslinger talk 17:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
It's main page is here and there's a disclaimer here that says "Pakpedia is a Pakistan’s biggest Encyclopedia where you can find all the information in detail about Pakistan related to all the categories including personalities, locations, cities, government sectors, tourist places and many more. All the content provided in the articles has been taken from different sites as the articles are written with many references which you may check in the article so if you find that the content is wrong or the content is too old which needs correction or something too negative written about any personality or anything then you are most welcome to do tell us on the provided email and please give us maximum 72 hours for the correction." I see it's used for Khalil-ur-Rehman Qamar but I came here via Hassan Hayat. I guess while I'm here I should ask about Diva Magazine also. [17] Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Citation no. 49 in NordVPN#Tesonet_court_case cites an article at vpnpro.com ( https://vpnpro.com/blog/why-pwc-audit-of-nordvpn-logging-policy-is-a-big-deal/) which in my opinion sounds like a sponsored advertisement. The website also contains a large amount of irrelevant articles, which makes it appear to me like a paid promotional website. In my opinion, such a website shouldn't be considered a reliable source, since it puts paid content above the goal of creating an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldosfan ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This was added to the People's Mujahedin of Iran:
"UK Border Agency describes MEK in a 2009 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation"".
This was the source used for this: [18]
It just doesn't look right to me, so brining it here for your comments. Barca ( talk) 00:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
cult-like terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq(MEK or MKO).' so I'm inclined to see it less as an interjection by the UKBA and rather a transposition of text to restore context to the acronym being used. 199.116.171.94 ( talk) 07:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
A Stuff.co.nz article entitled 'I survived a Krishna cult' has been cited on the Science of Identity Foundation page by Localemediamonitor and 207.233.45.12.
The 'stuff' article is based on assertions by Rama das Ranson. He is obviously very troubled, so I hesitate to post an excerpt here that might subject him to ridicule. But a quick check of Ranson's website raises serious doubts about the suitability of this as a source. Humanengr ( talk) 19:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The Stuff article mentions Ranson's accusations and those of a Member of New Zealand's Parliament (which the article says were later retracted after a lawsuit) of cultism. These accusations may be given undue weight in our article's text, even though the Stuff.co.nz article meets WP:SECONDARY guidelines for a reliable secondary source."Former members of the group describe it as a cult."
Hi all. An interesting conundrum came up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ironclaw (2nd nomination). I found a doctoral theses published at NYU that relates to this AFD. Should it be considered reliable (since doctoral theses are peer reviewed by their faculty), and can it be used towards WP:SIGCOV? Thanks. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm checking WP:RS/P#Morning Star, which currently lists the MS as a "No consensus" source and cites that the New Statesman described it as "Britain's last communist newspaper". This seems rather to understate things - it's actually the house organ of the Communist Party of Britain. It's linked from their site. It lists its editorial policy as being in accord with their manifesto " Britain's Road to Socialism", and that manifesto states "On the economic, political and ideological fronts, the Morning Star as the daily paper of the labour movement and the left, with its editorial policy based on Britain’s Road to Socialism, plays an indispensable role in informing, educating and helping to mobilise the forces for progress and revolution.".
The MS itself states that "while the Morning Star’s editorial line may be guided via an annual democratic endorsement of Communist Party of Britain strategy document Britain’s Road to Socialism ... the paper is in fact a co-op owned by its readers for its readers", and describes itself as "often a lone voice reporting the stories that other media refuse to touch", which has WP:N implications. [20]
I'm not necessarily arguing for a change in its status, it's certainly possible to cite it with caution, but maybe the list entry should be updated to reflect this? Vashti ( talk) 11:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
"The People’s Press Printing Society is now run by a management committee that includes representatives of nine national trade unions, each of which contributes £20,000 to the paper’s costs and "they wouldn’t do that if it was a communist front". Griffiths maintains that the involvement of non-communists is "genuine and substantial", though he concedes that the relationship between paper and party remains strong: he was in William Rust House on the same day as I was, to attend the monthly meeting of the CPB’s political committee. Chacko is also a committee member and he was attending the meeting, though Griffiths said he wouldn’t be "taking orders"".
Burrobert ( talk) 15:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Elizium23 ( talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Arguments on both sides varied subtly, but to me it's clear that there is no consensus to halt RfCs at this time. Prominent support votes included concerns that A) RFCs on reliability assessments of particular sources have been mass-produced without prior informal discussions occurring beforehand as advised in WP:RFCBEFORE, and B) that "deprecation" is used too excessively. While both arguments are valid to certain extents, in the end the oppose votes are more well-formulated. The vast majority of voters opposing such a measure ( Newslinger being the most prominent) present arguments that all basically boil down to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, as well as concerns that such a measure would, at best, undermine the very purpose of RfCs. Nonetheless, given that even a relative majority in the opposition sympathized with the support on the two aforementioned key supportive arguments, overall I'd say that there while there is a somewhat strong consensus for discouraging RfCs for any source whose reliability has not been previously discussed on RSN or elsewhere as per WP:RFCBEFORE as well as considerable consensus for exercising caution when nominating a source for deprecation (applying common sense where necessary), there is absolutely no reasonable consensus to implement a moratorium at this time. ToThAc ( talk) 22:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that the word generally means "usually" in this context, not "always". The general classification of a source is only the starting point for evaluating reliability, and specific uses of a source can always be brought to this noticeboard for a more targeted review. If a source frequently publishes articles outside of its circle of competence, like in your example about science and religion, then the source should not be considered generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 01:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
"for factual reporting"qualifier after
"Generally reliable". If this is not descriptive enough, then I agree that it would be helpful to provide more detailed definitions of each option in RfCs of this type. — Newslinger talk 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
" Generally reliable"has been changed to
" Generally reliable in its areas of expertise"in WP:RSP § Legend. — Newslinger talk 14:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"include at least one concrete example of an assertion of fact") suggested in the sub-question. While we should encourage editors to provide examples of how a source is being used, a question on the general reliability of a source shouldn't be unduly focused on one specific use of that source. — Newslinger talk 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
"opinion pieces are okay". See Wikipedia:Citing sources for what reference means.
Even
deprecated sources qualify for the
WP:ABOUTSELF exception, which allows their use for uncontroversial self-descriptions in the rare case that they are
WP:DUE and covered by reliable sources. The
reliable sources guideline is being honored in all of these RfCs, because
context matters in each of the four options. (The only exception is the
CoinDesk RfC, and I opposed the proposal in that RfC's statement because this criterion was not met.)
WP:DEPS defers to
WP:RS and explicitly states, "
reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others"
. If there is any confusion about what deprecation means, a link to
WP:DEPS will clarify.
When an editor asks about a low-quality source, we should be able to say that it is questionable, and that it generally shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Repeatedly debating the inclusion of poor sources that have earned abysmal reputations for repeatedly publishing false or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, or pseudoscience is a waste of the community's time. RfCs of this type allow us to make decisive evaluations resulting in consensus that endures until there is evidence that the source's reputation has changed. Consensus is a policy. — Newslinger talk 21:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Attributed opinions of people other than the author were considered in the RFC and were included in the ban (IAR notwithstanding). Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here.)
" its use as a reference"should not be
" generally prohibited". Overturning the current consensus would require a third RfC on the Daily Mail, which is not advisable right now because it's highly unlikely to succeed.
Nobody is suggesting that
WP:RS should be overridden; the type of RfC being discussed here uses
WP:V and
WP:RS to identify
questionable sources for what they are: "
generally unreliable"
. —
Newslinger
talk 08:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"the closers said attributed opinions are okay"is extremely misleading, since it conflates WP:RSOPINION (which the Daily Mail does not qualify for, because it's not considered a reliable source) with WP:ABOUTSELF (which is a restrictive exemption granted to all questionable sources and self-published sources). — Newslinger talk 20:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"opinion pieces", but the ones eligible for WP:ABOUTSELF
"were not considered in the RFC". — Newslinger talk 00:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Finally, a number of editors argued that other publications were similarly, or more, unreliable than the Daily Mail. We note that the unreliability of a different source is a reason to remove that source, and is irrelevant here; regardless, these other publications are outside the scope of this RfC, and if there are lingering concerns about other tabloids or tabloids in general, a separate RfC is necessary to assess current consensus about them.
"tabloid meriting removal". WP:RFC lists a number of accepted uses for an RfC:
"Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content."The type of RfC under debate solicits input on whether a source generally meets the requirements of WP:V (a policy) and WP:RS (a guideline). Outside of the instructions in WP:RFCST, declaring whether an RfC format is or isn't
"normal behaviour"for other editors is excessively bureaucratic, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. — Newslinger talk 20:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"lingering concerns"regarding a wide variety of sources, including tabloids. One of the goals of these RfCs are to identify low-quality sources like InfoWars ( RfC), Breitbart News ( RfC) (which you defended), and Occupy Democrats ( RfC) as sources that should be discouraged from use. — Newslinger talk 00:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
(UTC)
Some editors have suggested restrictions on when an RfC on the general reliability of a source would be appropriate, as well as changes to the commonly used 4-option RfC format. For more coordinated discussion, please list your suggestion in a new subheading under this "Workshop" section, so other editors can comment on them individually. — Newslinger talk 21:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I still oppose option 4 of the "commonly used" format. In my view an RfC on reliability is only appropriate if there has not been a discussion here which generated clear consensus, or if there has been discussion scattered around Wikipedia which needs centralising in an easily referable place. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Alternate proposal - define and restrict General Reliability RFCs to cases where they actually make sense:
Alsee ( talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
You shouldn't open threads about a source unless there is a specific content dispute. You shouldn't open a thread about the universal reliability of a source unless there is a preponderance of threads dealing with specific content disputes where they have decided the source is unreliable. GMG talk 23:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I suggest discouraging any repetitive objections to such general-purpose discussions and RFCs that aren't clearly backed up by whatever outcome we reach here. If there's no consensus to remove them, or if we've agreed to allow them under certain circumstances, then posting near-identical comments to several of them at once objecting to them in identical terms, like this is WP:POINTy. (Not to call that one set of edits out - it's the most recent example, but others have done similar things in the past.) The reality is that such discussions have been accepted practice for a long time, and absent an actual RFC against them or some other indication that that practice has changed, trying to shout them down by responding to all of them at once with identical objections isn't constructive. The appropriate way to halt a common practice you find objectionable is to first try and establish a centralized consensus against it, not to try and force through an objection that lacks such clear consensus through disruptively repeating your interpretation as fact even when after it's failed to reach consensus. Posting identical "bad RFC!" messages on a whole bunch of discussions at once isn't the way to move forwards, especially if there isn't really a clear consensus backing that objection up. Merely having a strong opposition to particular sorts of discussions, or strongly believing that they're against some policy, isn't sufficient justification for disrupting them like that if there's no clear consensus backing you up. Obviously this would just be a general guideline - people could still object to individual ones they feel are particularly unhelpful, but mass-copy-pasting an otherwise off-topic objection to every single RFC of a particular type that you think we shouldn't be having ought to require at least some consensus to back you up. -- Aquillion ( talk) 01:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome of this RFC. This proposal is only even possible if 1 of the 3 outcomes is arrived at... Galestar ( talk) 04:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
...that aren't clearly backed up by whatever outcome we reach here.Most of the proposals above would allow them under certain circumstances, so I worded it broadly in the sense of ie. obviously comments reminding people of a clear outcome here would be fine. (And, obviously, you are incorrect about 1 of the 3; there's also the situation where none of the options reach a clear consensus.) Nonetheless, I'll remove the first bit to avoid confusion. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Support as per proposer. Bacondrum ( talk) 23:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
"repetitive objections to such general-purpose discussions and RFCs". — Newslinger talk 11:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Appears to be just a simple yet grave misunderstanding of how WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is applied to arguments. ToThAc ( talk) 01:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The problem I see with blanket rules about what is and is not reliable is that it replaces using one's brain to figure it out. Effectively, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS carries no weight. See this discussion where I was in effect told that it was inappropriate to actually examine the evidence in the various sources and come to an evidence-based conclusion, which is exactly what WP:CONTEXTMATTERS implies one should do. Instead, the accepted thing appears to be to blindly follow certain rules about what is and is not reliable. And that makes people cynical about Wikipedia. Therefore, I suggest that what needs to happen is that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS needs to become policy that is actually used, rather than merely a "policy" statement that sits there but doesn't carry any weight in a decision about what is reliable and what isn't. Adoring nanny ( talk) 01:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
"The appropriateness of any source depends on the context."In the same paragraph, it defines the reliability spectrum:
"The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states,
"In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."Reliability depends on context, but some sources are more reliable in general than others. — Newslinger talk 01:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
"fairly [represent] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"( WP:DUE). WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is not a trump card that allows us to elevate a fringe opinion that is not supported by other reliable sources. If a person is convicted in court, and nearly all reliable sources report that they are guilty, it would be improper to grant a false balance to the minority perspective of a news reporter who claims that they are innocent, when that perspective is not corroborated by other reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 20:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Is NewsGram.com reliable so that it can be used in a BLP article? Recently added in this though it doesn't serve any purpose as of now. If it is reliable, then some important things in the Wiki article can be sourced from it. The editor-in-chief is some Munish Raizada [23], his twitter handle. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 15:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Does this journal look reliable? ∯WBG converse 10:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)