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 310 | ← | Archive 313 | Archive 314 | Archive 315 | Archive 316 | Archive 317 | → | Archive 320 |
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.
112 Ukraine is currently listed as deprecated and unreliable.
Guy ( help! - typo?) 09:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The site was blacklisted following Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites. This has now been challenged at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist § 112 domains removal because 112.ua was not included explicitly in discussion of state sponsored disinformation sites, but only in a related discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § news-front.info. There were several hundred links, mainly in the now-deleted timelines of the war in Donbass ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016)).
112 Ukraine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, although the RFC linked there doesn't mention the site. Given this, it's a fairly awkward situation at the blacklist noticeboard that some people cite the RSP entry and some the RFC. So as long as deprecations require a RFC. -- Pudeo ( talk) 09:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
general free-speech arguments-- I provided real arguments you chose to ignore.
aggressive attacks-- oh, really? Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
112.ua was owned by pro-Russian oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk. It has been identified as a source of pro-Russian disinformation, for example by the European External Action Service’s East StratCom Task Force, an EU body specialising in Russian disinformation. (see [23], [24]). It is now owned by a member of the pro-Russian party Opposition Platform — For Life, and continues to promote pro-Russian talking points, e.g.
Use of the Ukrainian television channels and other media to broadcast pro-Russian narratives (Example: In September 2018 Ukrainian TV channel website 112.ua posted a quote of the representative of the party “Za Zhyttia” (For Life) Serhiy Bogolyubov: “Ukraine does not fulfill the Minsk agreements”21)
As the sources in our article on 112 Ukraine show, this is a site owned by pro-Russian political activists and that is a red flag in the only content areas where it's likely to be used. Guy ( help! - typo?) 09:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The following online article is used in a Wikipedia BLP, Aliza Ayaz which is up for AfD: Pakistan’s First And Youngest Student, Aliza Ayaz Speaks At WUF By The UN Habitat.
Is brandsynario.com a reliable source?
This comes up every once in a while, a few times in the past couple of weeks. The
Congressional Record publishes tributes in its 'Extensions of Remarks' section. These include tributes to members of a congressperson's constituency. According to our article, Witnesses in committee hearings are often asked to submit their complete testimony "for the record" and only deliver a summary of it in person.
and it then makes the (un-sourced) claim that The overwhelming majority of what is found there is entered at the request of Members of the House of Representatives.
I've seen it argued that these tributes are not indicative of notability (because they constitute service to a constituency), but more importantly-- and why I am bringing it here-- that there is no editorial oversight of the tributes, meaning that they can only be reliable for sourcing 'Person X received a congressional tribute'. However, I cannot find any way to confirm this.
Are congressional tributes generally reliable (particularly as sources of biographical information)? -- Eddie891 Talk Work 22:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
But it looks likely for scientific purpose from WP:MEDRS, which is generally reliable for COVID-19 sources. -- The Houndsworth ( talk) 01:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a policy application discussion over at Talk:List of largest empires#Empire of Japan. The question is whether a particular instance of using personal communication with an author to assess the reliability of a source for a specific piece of information found within is appropriate. Complicating the matter is the fact that the source in question is not the original source of that particular piece of information; an earlier source which is not reliable when it comes to this particular subject matter per WP:RSCONTEXT has been found, and it contains the same piece of information while citing an even earlier source which we have been unable to locate (and thus may or may not be reliable).
The discussion on the talk page has stagnated, and I would like input from more editors weighing in on this. I was unsure if WP:RSN or WP:NORN was the more appropriate place for this, so I posted it to both. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
In 1942, at the moment of its greatest extension, the empire encompassed territories spanning over 7,400,000 square kilometers.TompaDompa ( talk) 05:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Or indeed anything, see their use in the last 4 edits of this editor. [26] Doug Weller talk 11:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Many popculture articles (about comic books or such) are often using references to the Top 10 list (a phenomena which should get its own article one day, if more sources like [27] exist - but that's an aside). The question is whether such lists are reliable and worth including, as usually they contain almost only plot (plus occasional basic facts about originating publication and creator), and next to no analysis. Recently another editor compared such lists to clickbait, and I do agree that they seem to be a very low quality source. Usually they don't explain their methodology, and contain just a description of whatever they discuss, with no justification, just assertions. But how low? Should we ban them or let them be? And should they count towards making a subject notable, given their proliferation on the Internet?
Examples of usage (often such lists form a major or only part of reception of many weaker articles about fiction); I will provide full quotes as some of those articles may end up being deleted one day. Comic Book Resources listed the character as part of He-Man: 15 Most Powerful Masters of the Universe, Comic Book Resources listed the character as "He-Man: Eternia’s 15 Mightiest Villains", Lion-O has received a mostly positive reception from critics: Comic Book Resources ranked the character 15th Best thing about ThunderCats. io9 ranked Lion-O 5th best thing about ThunderCats., Cheetara has had a mostly positive reception from critics. Comic Book Resources ranked the character among 11th Best thing about ThunderCats.io9 ranked Cheetara 2nd best thing about ThunderCats.... Comic Book Resources consider Cheetara the 10th most valuable Thundercats toy., Total Film ranked Zod #32 on their "Top 50 Greatest Villains of All Time" list in 2007. Pop-culture website IGN.com ranked General Zod as #30 on their list of the "Top 100 Comic Book Villains"., and so on.
More examples of such lists (from websites like Comic Book Resources, Screen Rant, IGN, io9 and similar portals, which seem to be usually reliable - but this mass production of loq quality clickbait-ish lists, which seems like it could almost be automated by some script, is worrisome: https://www.cbr.com/dc-comics-most-powerful-immortal-villains/, http://www.cbr.com/no-team-no-the-15-most-terrible-super-teams-in-comics/ , , http://www.cbr.com/generations-the-15-best-marvel-legacy-heroes/ , https://www.cbr.com/10-most-awesome-moments-from-marvels-star-wars-comic/ , https://www.cbr.com/teen-titans-best-worst-costumes-ranked/ , https://screenrant.com/comics-greatest-superheroes-marvel-dc-ranked/ , https://screenrant.com/dceu-the-batman-b-list-villains-gotham/ , http://www.cbr.com/the-best-female-fighters-in-mortal-kombat/ , https://www.cbr.com/good-and-bad-thundercats/ , https://io9.gizmodo.com/all-31-thundercats-and-their-foes-ranked-1767083095 and https://www.cbr.com/valuable-thundercats-toys/ , http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/the-top-50-greatest-heroes-villains-of-all-time-total-film-compiled-list/ , https://web.archive.org/web/20101224011850/http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/30.html , and so on.
What should we do? Should those lists be culled? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
In the last month, I've twice happened upon articles which show books written by the long-dead subject with links to google books. Formerly, the links would open to a selection from the book or article being referenced, but now many show as no-ebook available and lead only to purchase links. Last year I believe I saw an article in which similar Amazon purchase links were removed by another editor, and presumed that was because such naked commercialism was against some wikipedia policy. In the case of historian William B. Hesseltine (whose books were reissued several times before he died in 1963, well after the long-standing 1923 U.S. copyright cutoff date, now minimally extended), I knew some works were available free at Hathi Trust, so substituted those links for the google link, and also noted where the google link was purchase-only not a ref. Yesterday I came across similar links in the case of the linguist Edward Southey Joynes, who died in 1917. I sent a message to the talk page of the administrator/editor who had checked the links on August 15, and he suggested I contact another administrator, who (before I checked my email because of scammer calls that have plagued me) suggested I post here. I really am not a great technician, but prefer to spend whatever time I can spare adding content (such as local background and slaveholdings in yesterday's Joynes articles) that overseas editors (much less readers) can't otherwise access. I don't have time to spend hours learning and parsing various wikipedia policies, much less get caught in long discussion threads. Is there a wikipedia policy against purchase links? Or has google just changed its public domain works access policy? Jweaver28 ( talk) 19:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Are https://web.archive.org/web/20160305074921/http://txy.chnrailway.com/news/20120827095100.shtml and http://cxnews.zjol.com.cn/cxnews/system/2013/07/01/016597095.shtml RS for information about the station? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
WION News has a reputation that is unusual in India for being not state-owned but still spreading alot of nationalistic propaganda. They seem to be more of a rumor mill which puts out articles after reliable sources like Times of India or Doordoshan News. The best analogy might be Breibart News in the US. I would say that thier written articles are much better than thier youtube channel, but again, thats not saying much. Albertaont ( talk) 04:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
To me it looks reliable. You have not provided any cases where Wion has allegedly spread nationalistic propaganda and it seems like that is at a minimum needed to establish that this media channel is a serial purveyor of fake news. I would also say that the political connections of the founder shouldn't be enough to automatically disqualify the newspaper from being used. Many media outlets in the West are founded by people with political connections. From what I have seen of their reporting, especially reporting on world news, their articles and videos are incredibly well researched. Full of details that surpasses even the ones from Europe and English speaking countries. Many of the personalities working there used to work for other major media outlets and sometimes they interview leading experts from around the world to discuss various issues too.
Fortliberty (
talk) 16:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC) see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton
I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, as this discussion is not formatted as a formal request for comment. Please see WP:RFC for a guide on the RfC process. — Newslinger talk 08:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Wafa.ps is the news agency of the Palestinian National Authority (the interim government in the PA), as such it should not be considered a RS and should only be used with inline attribution, when absolutely necessary. It is currently being used in many articles, and especially in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area where it surely shouldn't be used at all. I would love to depreciate it considering there is absolutely zero fact checking but I just want to open this up for discussion. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Er, yes, WAFA is a very reliable news agency. Not sure why you would think otherwise? By Western standards, its web site is bare bones, but that is an advantage to Palestinians who browse with bandwidth-limited mobile phones. Generally, if Israel bombs Gaza, WAFA will have something up within a few hours at most.
True, WAFA "spins" news; if Israel bombs Gaza, WAFA might "forget" to note that PIJ fired rockets into Israel earlier in the day. But that is par for the course and Israeli media is equally guilty of "spinning" news. WAFAs factual reporting is very rarely incorrect. Furthermore, its reporting is often more detailed than Israeli or Western sources. While they might report: "Israel bombed targets in Gaza," WAFA might report: "Israeli warplanes struck three targets in Gaza; Khan Younis, Rafah and Beit Hanoun, causing material damage but no injuries." If what it reports isn't cross-checked, it will report it as "according to local sources ... " or "according to local activist Mohammed Something ..." exactly like other news agencies.
WAFA is frequently cited by other Middle Eastern media houses. For example, by IMEMC, Anadolu Agency, Al-Monitor, Middle East Monitor, and Palestine Chronicle. It's even cited by Israeli news sites like Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, and Haaretz. And by UN's media reviews.
If that isn't enough to convince you, then I don't know what would. Sometimes, when Palestinians are killed by Israeli soldiers, B'Tselem publishes investigative reports months later. For example, here is WAFA's report of the killing of Ibrahim Mustafa Abu-Yaaqoub and here is B'Tselem's investigation. As seen, their reports correlate well.
Frankly, I'm alarmed by this campaign to blacklist more and more news sources. The effect is that events that Western media doesn't think are important can't be noted on Wikipedia. There is no replacement for WAFA. If you blacklist that (and by extension, all Palestinian news outlets that are objectively worse), the end result would be that you'd have exactly zero Palestinian news agencies that would be permissible on Wikipedia. And it doesn't stop there, you'd have to blacklist the vast majority of African, Middle Eastern and Latin American news agencies too. ImTheIP ( talk) 03:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
A 16-year-old Palestinian was shot in the foot by an Israeli soldier during clashes in Beit Ummar north of Hebron.[10]I fail to see how prefixing this sentence with "According to Wafa, ..." makes anything better. Can one remove the "according to Wafa" if MEMO writes about the clashes or does one have to wait until (and if) the Jerusalem Post covers it? Does the "according to" have to be applied to COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine? "According to WAFA, Mai Alkaila confirmed 806 new cases ... According to WAFA, Mai Alkaila confirmed 433 new case ... According to WAFA, ai Alkaila confirmed 632 ne ..."
The same report notes that WAFA also has pig conspiracy theories:Rats have become an Israeli weapon to displace and expel Arab residents of the occupied Old City of Jerusalem
In case you were wondering, they are stilling doing it in 2017: [31]( copy)Wafa , controlled and funded by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' office, has in the past accused Israel of using wild pigs to drive Palestinians out of their homes and fields in the West Bank.
11Fox11 ( talk) 06:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)A wild pig attacked, on Friday night, a 10-year-old child in the town of Yamoun ... Palestinians say Israeli settlers let wild pigs run loose in the fields to attack farmers and villagers as a way to keep them off their land.
A 16-year-old Palestinian was shot in the foot by an Israeli soldier during clashes in Beit Ummar north of Hebron.[10]", WAFA can be used. This statement is not controversial. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 12:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The Palestine News and Information Agency (WAFA) was founded by the PLO in 1972. In 1994 it became part of the Palestinian Authority (PA). It was reformed between 2008 and 2011 to bring it closer to the presidency. Donor pressure unhappy with what they saw as inciting content was perhaps the reason. [2] WAFA, the Palestinian Public Radio and Television Corporation, and Al-Hayat al-Jadeeda (daily news) are the main media channels of the PA. All Fatah-affiliated. Only WAFA publishes in English.
There are only a handful news orgs based in the OPTs publishing in English. WAFA's competitors are the Hamas-affiliated Quds News Network, the "independent" Palestinian Information Center (PIC), and the palestine news network (pnn). Their reporting is more often than not derivative of WAFA's. For example, WAFA's report about settlers attacking olive harvesters is the basis for both pnn's short article and PIC's article. Thus, if you blacklist WAFA you have to blacklist these news orgs too since they publish rewrites of WAFA's articles.
How does WAFA make news? Like all other wire services it relies on a network of freelancers. When they see stuff happen, they record it on video, they take photos, and they talk to witnesses. Then they send their material to WAFA which publishes it. If the news is interesting enough, it is broadcast on tv, otherwise it's just pushed on the news feed. Exactly how all other wire services in the world operate. And it is not true that WAFA has no editorial control. Kholoud Assaf is WAFA's editor-in-chief.
Here is a bunch of reporting from the BBC that in part or in full relies on WAFA:
1999: [32], [33], 2001: [34], 2002: [35], [36], [37], [38], 2003: [39], [40], 2006: [41], 2007: [42], [43], [44], [45], 2011: [46], 2012: [47], [48], 2013: [49], [50], [51], 2014: [52], 2015: [53], 2016: [54], [55], [56], 2017: [57], 2018: [58], [59], [60], 2019: [61], [62], 2020: [63], [64]
By no means is this an exhaustive list - there are hundreds more BBC articles that cite WAFA and a similar list could be made for virtually every news org in the world. Just to drive the point home that WAFA is reliable and has been around for a loong time, here is some of WaPo's reporting from the Lebanese Civil War in the late 70's early 80's that in part or in full relies on WAFA:
1977: [65], 1978: [66], [67], [68], [69], 1979: [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], 1980: [76], [77], [78], [79], 1981: [80], [81], [82], 1982: [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], 1983: [93], [94], [95], [96], [97] , 1985: [98]
In these artices WaPo is actually sourcing WAFA for facts. For example, in
this article from 1981 WaPo writes in its
lead paragraph: Waves of Israeli warplanes bombed heavily populated Palestinian neighborhoods in Beirut and targets in southern Lebanon today, killing at least 123 persons and wounding hundreds more in Israel's most devastating attack here since its invasion in 1978.
How does WaPo know that at least 123 persons were killed? It relies on WAFA: As of late afternoon, the Palestinian news agency WAFA reported that the death toll had reached 123 but later the Phalangist radio put the figure at 150.
ImTheIP (
talk) 15:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The townspeople have been working together to shore up the ruins of the 12th century King's Castle that dominates their Galilee skyline under the guidance of local archaeologist Rabei Khamisy, the Haaretz newspaper reports.Is the BBC taking "full responsibility"?
The Palestinian official news agency Wafa quoted the attorney-general as saying that Mr Aloul had reported fire dust in the respiratory canal, meaning the victim had "inhaled this material while he was burnt alive".Is the BBC taking "full responsibility"?
The same report notes that WAFA also has pig conspiracy theories:Rats have become an Israeli weapon to displace and expel Arab residents of the occupied Old City of Jerusalem
In case you were wondering, they are stilling doing it in 2017: [102]( copy)Wafa , controlled and funded by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' office, has in the past accused Israel of using wild pigs to drive Palestinians out of their homes and fields in the West Bank.
11Fox11 ( talk) 06:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)A wild pig attacked, on Friday night, a 10-year-old child in the town of Yamoun ... Palestinians say Israeli settlers let wild pigs run loose in the fields to attack farmers and villagers as a way to keep them off their land.
There is a Western tradition of treating Palestinians as liars-by-default. Unless confirmed by a non-Arab, a Palestinian's claim is more often than not seen as "the product of the well-known over-imaginative Arab mind."
The "wild pigs" story described by 11Fox11 sounds similarly outlandish if you don't know about the context.
The West Bank population of wild boars have exploded in the recent decades and is a serious menace. Why the population has exploded is unknown; some blame the construction of the West Bank barrier, others the decline of the number of hyenas which are the wild boars natural predators.
A single pack of wild boars can inflict almost catastrophic destruction to agricultural lands. Palestinian farmers are effectively defenseless against wild boar attacks; they are neither allowed to have firearms nor to kill them using poison traps. Settlers, on the other hand are, and they shot at wild boars that get too close to their settlements. Wild boars are wickedly smart animals and learn to stay away from settlements and instead they gather in Palestinian areas. [3]
Many Palestinians are afraid of wild boars and consider them unclean animals. Fully-grown wild boars weigh upwards of 200 kg. An attacking wild boars can cause serious injury to children. Palestinian farmers fault Israel for refraining from culling the wild boar population. They also suspect that it is part of a strategy to make their lives miserable. Likewise, some farmers fault settlers for letting wild boars roam instead of shooting them.
There have been multiple reports of settlers using wild boars to harass Palestinians. Nothing has (afaik) been confirmed. Thus, we don't know if the reports are true or the product of over-imaginative Arab minds. Settlers have probably not dumped truckloads of wild boars into Palestinian areas. However, it is not beyond the pale to suspect that armed extremist settlers have intentionally driven packs of wild boars into Palestinian built-up areas and agricultural lands. There is an infamous settlement known as Yitzhar in the Northern West Bank and its inhabitants are known to act like utter pricks against their Palestinian neighbours. [4]
Here are some reporting on the wild boar problem:
The al-Quds article is very indepth and interviews numerous Palestinian officials and farmers affected by the wild boars. A number of them claim that settlers have "released wild boars" and a number of them claim to have been injured by wild boars. I cannot tell if the article is "pure propaganda". If it is, then it's damn convincing propaganda.
Let's investigate the Wafa article in question:
A wild pig attacked on Friday night a 10-year-old child in the town of Yamoun, west of Jenin, causing her injury in her hand, according to local sources. They said Alaa Houshieh was admitted to hospital after she as bit in her hand by a pig.
Note that the story is credited to local sources and that the report doesn't mention settlers.
Palestinians say Israeli settlers let wild pigs run loose in the fields to attack farmers and villagers as a way to keep them off their land.
That is indeed what many Palestinians say.
The residents, who say they never before had wild pigs in the West Bank until the settlers came there, have urged the Palestinian Authority to help get rid of the wild pigs in their areas, which have become a threat to them, particularly children.
The first part is, afaik, an exaggeration; wild boars are indigenous to the West Bank, even though they are a much bigger problem now than ever before. Wafa's report is one-sided - it doesn't give the settlers nor the Israeli government's view of the story - but the actual reporting seem to be sound: a 10-year-old girl in Yamoun was bit in the hand by a wild boar, according to local sources.
CNN touches on the wild boars problem in 3 cars torched, mosque defaced in West Bank:
"This is not the first time Deir Istiya village (has) come under attack by the settlers," Salman said. "Deir Istiya is surrounded by nine Israeli settlements, and we are attacked and harassed by settlers on daily basis." Salman said settlers released some 300 wild pigs into the farming fields of the village, which destroyed and damaged the seasonal crops of the Palestinian farmers.
I frankly fail to see much difference between CNN's take and Wafa's. Here is one article in the BBC about Israeli "guard pigs":
Rabbis back Israeli 'guard pigs'
Under Jewish law, pigs are seen as unclean
An organisation in Israel has gained rabbinical approval to train pigs to guard Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
If that article had been published in Wafa it would have been called blood libel. But now it's published in the BBC. So what gives? Last year the Jerusalem Post reported that Israeli scientists would have
"a complete cure for cancer in a year". Earlier this year it was fooled to publish
slanderous op-eds by deepfaked author profiles. Wafa is absolutely not the best news agency, but it is also far from the worst. As a source for incident reports, e.g. A 16-year-old Palestinian was shot in the foot by an Israeli soldier during clashes in Beit Ummar north of Hebron.[10]
, it is very reliable.
ImTheIP (
talk) 22:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Oxfam has also described boar attacks: here is a constantly present risk of seeing the settlers turn up in the fields to attack Palestinian farmers – a frequent occurrence here. In addition to this violence, there is also the tactic of letting loose wild boars, which wreck crops and scare the villagers.
[5] According to
Arutz Sheva,
Combatants for Peace has also spread the wild boars story.
[6] I don't think the boar story is true, but I also don't think it is proof that Wafa is unreliable since so many other media outlets have featured it (among them CNN).
ImTheIP (
talk) 01:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
In 2008, rat infestation was a major problem in Jerusalem. [7] The Muslim quarter is densely built, run-down, and leaky sewage pipes are common. [8] Perfect conditions for rats. Hasan Khater exists and he has complained about Israeli policies in East Jerusalem (which the Old City is part of). [9] One common complaint among Palestinians is that Israel is trying to "Judaize" Jerusalem (i.e. increase the fraction of the population that is Jewish). Palestinians allege that as part of this goal, Israel denies them permits for construction and renovation works.
There exists groups of aggressive religious settlers that tries to take over Palestinian property in Jerusalem. [10] The quotes from the supposed Wafa article (I haven't been able to find the original article) implies that it is these groups that are described ("dozens of settlers come to the alleyways and streets of the Old City"). If Wafa has reported a rumour about them releasing rats as if it were facts, that is of course wrong. However, calling it anti-Semitic blood libel is a stretch. Persistent rumors about organ harvesting circulated among Palestinians in the 1990s. They were also "anti-Semitic blood libel" until they were proven true. It's hard to know what is fact or fiction.
Perhaps it is also relevant that the Jerusalem Post journalist that wrote the article, Khaled Abu Toameh, is a fellow at the Gatestone Institute, run by Amir Taheri... ImTheIP ( talk) 01:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Israel-related animal conspiracy theories refers. There, the rat nonsense is referenced to an opinion piece of 2008 in an Irish newspaper that I found in the wayback machine. It says the story was in two Palestinian newspapers but does not mention their names and specifically does not mention WAFA. So the article misrepresents the source to have said WAFA, when it does not. I think I have wasted quite enough time on this tripe. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
"Is Wafa an RS?" is far too broad a question to answer. Is there a specific use of Wafa that you want evaluated? What's the context for this request? These broad deprecation discussions are really getting out of hand. WP:RSN used to be for specific questions about whether sources were reliable in specific contexts, not general free-for-all discussions about all aspects of a source. Wafa is a major news agency. It will probably be reliable in most contexts, but like many news agencies, there are probably specific contexts in which it should be used with caution or compared against other sources (e.g., for highly contentious subjects in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you might want to compare what Palestinian, Israeli and international news agencies are reporting). A specific question is answerable. A general discussion about whether Wafa is at all reliable will lead nowhere, or worse, will end up with yet another overly broad deprecation of the kind we've seen too often over the past year. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Every WAFA story has a grain of truth. The typical mold is that something bad happened in Palestine, and usually that has some factual basis. However WAFA typically presents such events as being controlled and directed by Israel, settlers, or "the Jews". Thus, Israel is responsible for rain, in 2015 WAFA published: Israel Floods Gaza Neighborhood with Rainwater, stating as a factual assertion that:
Almost every year, the Israeli authorities open the floodgates to their dams in the direction of Gaza and without prior notice, to discharge massive quantities of water that had accumulated due to the heavy rains in the Naqab region.
However, this was pure fake news, there are no dams that allow for control of flow of water in the Wadi, according to AFP:
But no such dam exists in Israel that could control the flow of water into Gaza, according to a team of AFP reporters on the ground as well as interviews with Israeli and international experts.
This outright lie by WAFA is typical, spinning the events of the moment to suit political purposes, even when the lie itself is easily refuted as false. Vici Vidi ( talk) 05:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Floods generally occur in the wadis only once every two years. The peak discharge and thus flood volumes are directly related to catchment size (Amit et al., 2007). Generally, water runs in the Gaza Strip wadis for a short time during the winter season; they remain dry for the rest of the year. Flooding in the Gaza Strip rarely occurs, and seems to take place only when the volumes of water in Israeli dams exceed their capacities. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the wadis in the Gaza Strip.
There are small fixed diversion dams, that if at all reduce flood surges towards Gaza, and that are fixed stone structures. The allegation that Israel opened dams was false, as dams with control structures that could cause such a large release do not exist. Al Jazeera retracted, even the WP:DAILYMAIL [103] retracted. WAFA printed bullshit (and this is basic geography any local source should know, this is hardly an honest mistake), it did not bother to retract, it is still sitting with all its fake glory with no attribution. They even continue to repeat the dam bullshit years later: January 2019, January 2020, a regular January story on WAFA, ignored just like any other fake WAFA story. Vici Vidi ( talk) 15:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)What does exist here is a low stone structure, barely a metre high, next to a shallow concrete channel, which is sometimes referred to as a "diversion dam" -- whose purpose is to slow the flow of water so some of it can be diverted into a nearby reservoir for irrigation purposes, Kretschmer explained. It has no gates, nor openings, and when the flood waters hit, they simply glide over it as if it did not exist. "If it does anything, it actually reduces the quantity of water flowing towards Gaza, and not the opposite," Shahaf said.
Working on articles dealing with involvement of hackers for instance
I come across the media outlet the Insider( [104]) for above mentioned case specifically "Clown" from the GRU. Who hacked into Angela Merkel's mail? A search on wikipedia revealed the source domain used previously , but the media outlet does not seem to have an article describing it on enwiki. Do we know anything about the media outlet? The media outlet is mentioned in the Awards section of Bellingcat but not in the European Press Prize article listing the aforementioned award. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 17:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Fox is correctly considered dubious for politics, does this prevent use of Fox as a source for political endorsements? Guy ( help! - typo?) 13:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:POLEND states:
This was adopted after a community-wide RfC and is an obvious extension of WP:BLP given the potential impact of an erroneous claim of endorsement of one candidate or another.
a publication founded by a public relations firm at the behest of the Kazakh government( source)
Would other editors agree that we should not use these sources to describe Kazakhstan's human rights and environmental record? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 22:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Is theaerodrome.com/ a reliable source? Context:
this is in use on
Friedrich Ritter von Röth. Rationale provided upon request by GA nominator was It is run by the very same authors who write authoritative aviation history books for Grub Street and Osprey Publishing. I doubt they tell the truth in print and lie on the website.
I'm inclined to agree, but would appreciate a second opinion.
Eddie891
Talk
Work 02:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Worth having a productive discussion about these sources; the only meaningful thread I've found on RSN barely touched on the issue and mostly glanced off into irrelevance so it'd be nice to go back and have a more productive look. My main concern is the use of these publications:
These sources are used throughout Wikipedia. The publications' wikipedia articles are heavily reliant on primary sourcing (which should hopefully be addressed at some point, but that's not neither here nor there), and are pretty terrible in terms of suggesting what makes them reliable.
The Skeptical Inquirer says they do some review of published work, but that it's primarily up to authors, which isn't a good sign. [111] The UK Sceptic used to say allows people to post blog posts, which means it seems like it would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis per WP:SPS [112] (the language is now gone on their current page, but doesn't really speak to how the blogs are run at all.) The US Skeptic actually has a proper masthead, but doesn't say what its editorial board actually does, and doesn't mention its review process at all. [113] (As a side note none of these publications actually pay contributors, which may or may not affect quality of submissions or editing but is worth calling out as a general rule.) None of these publications as far as I can tell are included in a rigorous citation index. My judgement at present would be that they are at best highly situational and probably need justification on a case-by-case basis per SPS based on who is writing them, as there are skeptics related to or attached to the magazines that have been quoted or profiled more extensively by publications such as the NYT, et al. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:29, 9 October 2020 (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.
I believe that Fox News, Fox Business, and any other right-wing sources like Breitbart, New York Post is unreliable because they are very poor fact-checking when reporting about crime, and social issues and afiliated with far-right organization. When i cite any economic news, i don't want to cite it to Fox News and similar website, instead i more rely to BBC, France 24, and anymore that i fact more high quality reliable. Also when i cite international events, i would more cite on BBC than any right wing media like RT, CGTN, Fox, and many more that i considered low quality non-reliable. Should all or most right wing media be deprecated as reliable source? 182.1.228.70 ( talk) 03:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't spend my life at RSN, and probably like a number of other editors the first point at which I realise something has got depreciated is with a change to an article on my watchlist. In this case this edit on the MGWR on Sir Ralph Smith Cusack altering me to WP:DEPS and a bit of deft searching will find it on WP:RSP, though not under 'T' (Its under a bundle at 'P' ... its quite easy to find if one know the old ctrl+F trick). The discussion was at a title which did not initially encompass Thepeerage.com; it being a third source added subsequenctly with less prominence; leading to possible inherited tainting from the other two sites. The RFC, see 2020, had some subtantial WP:VAGUEWAVE anti self published source feeling that is not always backed by Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS seem to effectively bar the use for BLPs, so use at e.g. Jeremy Hosking is likely a problem - however that does not cover the case for the deceased biographies. The RFC was non-admin closed and had other irregularites including an unsigned comment (by JzG ), hints of some possible "antii-peerage" bias rather than concentrating on the source. The source compiler, a Darryl Lundy, has come to the attention of RSN on several occasions before, per [114]. There seems to be little doubt Darryl Lundy appears to do diligent checking and generally seems to cite his sources (usually Burks etc) and be open to notification of errors. Perhaps "unreliable" in Wikipedia speak but probably "unreliable" in real world speak. There is usually options of replacing the theppeerage.com with the cite reference or using WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT however there is really danger here of people simply replacing thepeerage.com with the underlying source without checking the underlying source. While the closure of the RFC may be technically correct and allows Wikipedian to smugly dismiss Darryl theppeerage.com as "unreliable" in Wikipedia world at Midland Great Western Railway seems almost slanderous at first reading. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Djm-leighpark ( talk) 14:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven thankyou for agreeing the bundling in the RSP list source column should be unbundled. Given my current intake of stout I will now recuse from this discussion as I am inclined to use language I learnt to be necessary to request a pony to reverse a haycart shifter under a cock of hay and per the your contributions on my talk page such comments would likely be inappropriate. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 21:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys I'm new to all this but I need a little assistant, I was editing the BROS the time page and used article from magazine published 17-9-1990 in relation to article discussing the success of bros two studio albums in the article its states that bros sold over 16 million albums with just 2 studio albums this being PUSH and the time, the article cites the PUSH was CBS bestselling debut album in the history of the record label, then can also been found on several blogs, site and media publication.
the magazine was published by Art Music and editor's were Anthony George, Katie Watkins, Marvin Jackson, Stephen Miller, the magazine was INDEPENDANT magazine such as those Smash Hit's and had know association with bros, their management. now I was editing the page adding the sales published in the article and was some targeted by two editor who reverted edits but could not provide any evidence to why they disproved the edit. i have been told numerous things, editors accepting the edit and others reverting the edit with valid explanation or help in away. I found 5 different sources all stating the same below are couple of links
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Bros_article_1990.jpg permission granted https://www.discogs.com/artist/81613-Bros/images https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1233382783669521&set=p.1233382783669521&__cft__[0]=AZVHZ6hp-6VfDz95oBjmDRfEKqMcFS4QOk9FKaXfKr5qbz4S3QN1bZib4VqDaAA06jKJCemLBt1b9BJg-agkDWqMn2HeJO_7XZM7GrUb97Slk4UWFjvSAl6k20vmh6kH3bCOckEIvcnjhVxWO3l5kdxFMXdFBjOxcMUMq4tbEXpayPuXM08jztTRe8qCMYn9O5wXJTV6Vxoqc1rtoIyGnUWrsU_eWDe-l9Vl77lPMPhGAQ&__tn__=EH-y-R http://www.brosusic.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3136:4500:ED89:CF30:324A:32D ( talk)
the question is are magazine article sources that can be used on wiki is very simple after checking WR.PS answer yes and it's not up to uploaded editor to disprove its edits but the editor who can disprove the source. this how people win court cases the defendant but disprove the claimant case if they can't the source show be allowed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3136:4500:ED89:CF30:324A:32D ( talk)
Have there been prior discussions of this site? My own opinion is that the information is unreliable unless the author of a particular piece is known asan expert, and that it's interviews exists for the purpose of PR. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
AS per the advice of Newslinger, I am proposing applying WP:IAR to using the Daily Mail as a source for interviews with the co-signers who are not getting enough media coverage or the opportunity to express their views. In WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail, the following paragraph said "Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case.". Right now, the Great Barrington Declaration article is in a very bad shape; a reader who reads this article won't get any context about the declaration or why the people who signed the declaration did it, and will have to go elsewhere on the Internet due to the lack of information in the article. In addition to the lack of WP:NPOV, the article in its current status will fit more with the title "Responses to the Great Barrington Declaration" than the current title. Consequently, I feel it is warranted to apply WP:IAR to include more context about the declaration and the reasons the signers/co-signers signed it for. Since many of the co-signers didn't get the chance to appear in main stream media due to the highly politicized nature of the subject, I feel that this is one of the exceptional cases that WP:IAR should apply to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail specially that it includes only interviews with co-signers (window for co-signers to express their opinions) not factual information. What do you think? And will it help if I added an introductory statement like "In an interview with the Daily Mail" to warn the reader about the source? Knowledge Contributor0 ( talk) 19:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard ( talk) 08:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.
For the record, we WP:IAR'd already in the Great_Barrington_Declaration#Authors section, citing an interview in Jacobin and pointing to some editorials the authors had published, some of which i did not see mentioned in other RS. fiveby( zero) 21:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
If its important RS will have picked it up, if they have not neither should we. The Daily Myth makes up quotes, alters it own historical content. It cannot be trusted. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Given that we're talking content that also falls into the realm of MEDRS (that is, the proposed Declaration appears to have numerous medical experts calling it a Bad Idea (TM)) FRINGE likely applies and we should be wary of necessarily giving too much weight to the rational/science behind the declaration unless those are also backed by MEDRS-type sourcing. Which the DM is clearly not. -- Masem ( t) 16:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintainingWP, then (and only then) does IAR apply. Adding quotes which may be fabricated and have no reliable source is not an improvement or maintenance of WP. Therefore in this instance IAR does not apply and the rule not to include information sourced to the Daily Mail should be followed. Cambial foliage❧ 12:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a forum for gathering wider opinion of the community, not for individuals to hammer away at the same point endlessly to all who differ. You opened a proposition for discussion, and within 3 days more than ten editors responded firmly in the negative, with barely a flicker of support. You have your answer. Cambial foliage❧ 22:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
As I believe I waited enough to hear all arguments that can be raised, I think that the result is: almost every user rejected the proposal. For the sake of reference for any future discussion specially about policies, here is a summary of all arguments raised against and for the proposal.
Against:
For:
Knowledge Contributor0 ( talk) 22:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)
Is The Globe Post reliable for this edit? Please note that the content is verified by this source, too. -- Mhhossein talk 03:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
No. Can't find a correction's policy on their site. Adoring nanny ( talk) 03:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Source:
https://www.bestplaces.net/religion/city/oregon/portland
Article:
Portland, Oregon
claim "Of the 35.9% of the city's residents who do identify as religious, Roman Catholics make up the largest group, at 15.8%"
The page is fully loaded with ads, does not show the source of data, when the data was gathered or compiled. There was same discussion in
2018 with no comment.
Graywalls (
talk) 20:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I came upon
this survey by the Group for Analyzing, &c., hereafter Gamaan. Not only are the parts of the pie chart misaligned, it also purports that not more than one third of Iranians are Shia Muslims. I have no genuine hard evidence to back it up, but based on the wealth of other similarly recent sources also provided in this article, I find this survey's results to be totally preposterous.
Another inaccuracy in Gamaan's survey results exists in this document, a segment of which reads:
68% [of respondents] stated that they do not intend to vote in the parliamentary elections (Islamic Consultative Assembly) of March 2020, while 18% said that they will participate in the elections. Approximately 14% said they haven’t decided yet.
The turnout for these elections (which were actually held in February) was 42%. Making the (unreasonable) assumption that the entirety of respondents who said they would participate in the elections in addition to those who said that they had not decided all participated in the election still results in a 10% discrepancy between the statements of respondents to the poll and the actual behavior of Iranians.
Indeed the fact that these surveys are conducted online is a major cause of their unreliability, especially in Iran which is a conservative society resulting in even more left-wing and secular bias among internet users than is found in Western countries. For example, of respondents to the question "Who did you vote for in the 2017 presidential election?", 64% had voted for Hassan Rouhani and 4% had voted for Ebrahim Raisi, despite the actual results of the election being 41% for Rouhani and 28% for Raisi.
Generally I consider that this organisation is an unreliable source and ought not be given as much precedence as it currently is. Beaneater ( talk) 09:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Which of the following best describes the reliability of forces-war-records.co.uk?
FDW777 ( talk) 15:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Briefly discussed at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311#forces-war-records.co.uk, however in the course of my cleanup some additional information has come to my attention. There are pages such as
Prisoners of War of the Japanese 1939-1945 which do mention using Wikipedia as a reference (scroll all the way down to where it says Some of the material on this page was also partially derived from
but without saying what information comes from where, rendering all information on the page worthless. However, in addition to that there are pages such as
Unit History: Joint Services Command and Staff College (JSCSC) which was being used on the
Cormorant article, and which doesn't mention any references at all. However that page says;
Our article Joint Services Command and Staff College says;
Since that demonstrates they are also apparently using Wikipedia as a reference without mentioning it, potentially every single page is worthless. FDW777 ( talk) 15:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The HAF is an unreliable source that has many allegations against its mission of neutrality. Here is a list of articles and references that I would point to, to argue that HAF has a history of bias, notably to Christianity.
https://www.hinduamerican.org https://theintercept.com/2019/09/25/howdy-modi-trump-hindu-nationalism/ https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/tulsi-gabbard-2020-hindu-nationalist-modi/ http://circulate.it/r/7BUUNlbcRMitBCVM7DqFjo9PMgZKQJlIQfUQdf23YM3rOZbHFzYXkWKbdgFtWj9IAuBulBtWJNS-32yI7dl9_nVnkfs/www.coalitionagainstgenocide.org/press/cag.pr.07apr2014.php (this article speaks to "Hindu American Foundation exposed as foe of human rights and religious freedom") http://www.coalitionagainstgenocide.org/press/cag.pr.22apr2014.php http://www.coalitionagainstgenocide.org/press/cag.pr.22dec2013.php http://www.coalitionagainstgenocide.org/press/cag.pr.06dec2013.php (this article demonstrates the HAF's supremacist ideology through smear campaign against CAG and Indian Muslims — anti-Christian AND anti-Muslim)
This source is being cited on the Gospel For Asia Wikipedia page.
I am editing a page where some court documents are used as inline citations. I have heard -- but cannot seem to confirm -- whether such court documents can in fact be used as a reference within a wiki page. On the one hand, the document is either a complaint or a response to a complaint, and as such is a document where the two parties don't seem to agree on the facts.... so that would lead me to think lawsuit documents cannot be used. BUT - you sign them under the agreement of truth, so that should stand for something? Also, if a news outlet reports on a story and uses information from court documents, as long as that particular media outlet is reliable, then that could be used, but since it would be just a regurgitation of the court documents, doesn't that lean toward "yes" court documents are considered a valid reference in a wiki page? Help! Thanks in advance. -- 10Sany1? ( talk) 21:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
For reasons quite beyond the court's control, its opinion must be treated cautiously as a source of actual facts. Because the defendant was appealing a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the court was under an obligation to view all the evidence in a way most favorable to the plaintiffs and essentially to ignore evidence in the record that might be favorable to the defendant. See id. at 773, 820, 174 Cal. Rptr. at 359, 388. In fact, Ford's basic position at trial-which the court's opinion at no point mentions-was that the approaching car (a Ford Galaxie) had not slowed down at all, and had struck the Gray car at a speed in excess of 50 miles per hour. There was an enormous amount of evidence at trial supporting each of the parties' factual claims as to the Galaxie's closing speed. Had the jury accepted Ford's speed estimate, there would not have been much of an issue of crashworthiness: for the plaintiffs' position throughout trial was that even a state-of-the-art fuel system could not maintain integrity in a 50 mile-per hour collision.
References
Say what you will about the unreliable source, this is excellent: 5 Easy Ways to Spot a B.S. News Story on the Internet -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
One in five Mail stories is made up? This is a "fundamental truth" now is it? Who even writes such obvious nonsense? -Christine O'Connell (freelance journalist) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Christine O'Connell (
talk •
contribs) Blocked sock.
David Gerard (
talk) 21:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
In the RSP list, they're green, just like regular Forbes and no distinction is made between contributors and staff. What is the reliability of non-staff articles on the Intercept like this one used in Proud Boys? That author does not have a publisher issued email address and he was not in the staff roster of the time that story was originally published. Another piece I randomly chose on their website https://theintercept.com/2020/10/19/blacks-for-trump-maurice-symonette-cult/ is authored by someone with a publisher email address and rostered in their current list. Are all pieces on The Intercept treated as reliable or are their contributor pieces similar to WP:FORBESCON ? Graywalls ( talk) 05:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Distractify is described by The New York Times as "a viral content site that fills Facebook news feeds with feel-good posts built largely on repackaging content from other websites" ( NYT). Crunchbase describes it as "creates and covers what's trending on the internet", and with only 2 "current team members" ( C). SimilarWeb states "specializes in content that sparks conversations around news, entertainment and pop culture" ( SW). Distractify is increasingly being used as a source, including in BLPs (e.g. blp). Should brakes be applied on the use of this website as a "reliable source"? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I recently came across a citation on the page Urdu language, a language spoken in South Asia. It is to a grant proposal appearing on the internet: here. There is no indication that the proposal was funded, let alone a publication resulted in a peer-reviewed journal or book. The Principal Investigator (PI) has put other proposals on the internet; in some cases, they are preliminary ones, only a little more detailed than Letters of Intent. ( Most proposals have sections on the broad subject area of the topic being proposed and a review of the previous research. It is such a section that is being appealed to in the citation on Urdu.) The PI seems to be some kind of a digitized font programmer for different language scripts; the statement moreover being appealed to is in the background section on the history of the language and the script (in which the PI is not necessarily an expert). He has all sorts of other proposals on the internet on Soyombo script of Mongolia and Japan, Maithili Script of eastern India, Elymaic Script of Western Iran. I am looking for a clear statement of Wikipedia policy about citing such proposals. I would imagine it would have been spelled out by now. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:05, 21 October 2020 (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 310 | ← | Archive 313 | Archive 314 | Archive 315 | Archive 316 | Archive 317 | → | Archive 320 |
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.
112 Ukraine is currently listed as deprecated and unreliable.
Guy ( help! - typo?) 09:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The site was blacklisted following Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites. This has now been challenged at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist § 112 domains removal because 112.ua was not included explicitly in discussion of state sponsored disinformation sites, but only in a related discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § news-front.info. There were several hundred links, mainly in the now-deleted timelines of the war in Donbass ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016)).
112 Ukraine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, although the RFC linked there doesn't mention the site. Given this, it's a fairly awkward situation at the blacklist noticeboard that some people cite the RSP entry and some the RFC. So as long as deprecations require a RFC. -- Pudeo ( talk) 09:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
general free-speech arguments-- I provided real arguments you chose to ignore.
aggressive attacks-- oh, really? Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
112.ua was owned by pro-Russian oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk. It has been identified as a source of pro-Russian disinformation, for example by the European External Action Service’s East StratCom Task Force, an EU body specialising in Russian disinformation. (see [23], [24]). It is now owned by a member of the pro-Russian party Opposition Platform — For Life, and continues to promote pro-Russian talking points, e.g.
Use of the Ukrainian television channels and other media to broadcast pro-Russian narratives (Example: In September 2018 Ukrainian TV channel website 112.ua posted a quote of the representative of the party “Za Zhyttia” (For Life) Serhiy Bogolyubov: “Ukraine does not fulfill the Minsk agreements”21)
As the sources in our article on 112 Ukraine show, this is a site owned by pro-Russian political activists and that is a red flag in the only content areas where it's likely to be used. Guy ( help! - typo?) 09:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The following online article is used in a Wikipedia BLP, Aliza Ayaz which is up for AfD: Pakistan’s First And Youngest Student, Aliza Ayaz Speaks At WUF By The UN Habitat.
Is brandsynario.com a reliable source?
This comes up every once in a while, a few times in the past couple of weeks. The
Congressional Record publishes tributes in its 'Extensions of Remarks' section. These include tributes to members of a congressperson's constituency. According to our article, Witnesses in committee hearings are often asked to submit their complete testimony "for the record" and only deliver a summary of it in person.
and it then makes the (un-sourced) claim that The overwhelming majority of what is found there is entered at the request of Members of the House of Representatives.
I've seen it argued that these tributes are not indicative of notability (because they constitute service to a constituency), but more importantly-- and why I am bringing it here-- that there is no editorial oversight of the tributes, meaning that they can only be reliable for sourcing 'Person X received a congressional tribute'. However, I cannot find any way to confirm this.
Are congressional tributes generally reliable (particularly as sources of biographical information)? -- Eddie891 Talk Work 22:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
But it looks likely for scientific purpose from WP:MEDRS, which is generally reliable for COVID-19 sources. -- The Houndsworth ( talk) 01:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a policy application discussion over at Talk:List of largest empires#Empire of Japan. The question is whether a particular instance of using personal communication with an author to assess the reliability of a source for a specific piece of information found within is appropriate. Complicating the matter is the fact that the source in question is not the original source of that particular piece of information; an earlier source which is not reliable when it comes to this particular subject matter per WP:RSCONTEXT has been found, and it contains the same piece of information while citing an even earlier source which we have been unable to locate (and thus may or may not be reliable).
The discussion on the talk page has stagnated, and I would like input from more editors weighing in on this. I was unsure if WP:RSN or WP:NORN was the more appropriate place for this, so I posted it to both. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
In 1942, at the moment of its greatest extension, the empire encompassed territories spanning over 7,400,000 square kilometers.TompaDompa ( talk) 05:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Or indeed anything, see their use in the last 4 edits of this editor. [26] Doug Weller talk 11:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Many popculture articles (about comic books or such) are often using references to the Top 10 list (a phenomena which should get its own article one day, if more sources like [27] exist - but that's an aside). The question is whether such lists are reliable and worth including, as usually they contain almost only plot (plus occasional basic facts about originating publication and creator), and next to no analysis. Recently another editor compared such lists to clickbait, and I do agree that they seem to be a very low quality source. Usually they don't explain their methodology, and contain just a description of whatever they discuss, with no justification, just assertions. But how low? Should we ban them or let them be? And should they count towards making a subject notable, given their proliferation on the Internet?
Examples of usage (often such lists form a major or only part of reception of many weaker articles about fiction); I will provide full quotes as some of those articles may end up being deleted one day. Comic Book Resources listed the character as part of He-Man: 15 Most Powerful Masters of the Universe, Comic Book Resources listed the character as "He-Man: Eternia’s 15 Mightiest Villains", Lion-O has received a mostly positive reception from critics: Comic Book Resources ranked the character 15th Best thing about ThunderCats. io9 ranked Lion-O 5th best thing about ThunderCats., Cheetara has had a mostly positive reception from critics. Comic Book Resources ranked the character among 11th Best thing about ThunderCats.io9 ranked Cheetara 2nd best thing about ThunderCats.... Comic Book Resources consider Cheetara the 10th most valuable Thundercats toy., Total Film ranked Zod #32 on their "Top 50 Greatest Villains of All Time" list in 2007. Pop-culture website IGN.com ranked General Zod as #30 on their list of the "Top 100 Comic Book Villains"., and so on.
More examples of such lists (from websites like Comic Book Resources, Screen Rant, IGN, io9 and similar portals, which seem to be usually reliable - but this mass production of loq quality clickbait-ish lists, which seems like it could almost be automated by some script, is worrisome: https://www.cbr.com/dc-comics-most-powerful-immortal-villains/, http://www.cbr.com/no-team-no-the-15-most-terrible-super-teams-in-comics/ , , http://www.cbr.com/generations-the-15-best-marvel-legacy-heroes/ , https://www.cbr.com/10-most-awesome-moments-from-marvels-star-wars-comic/ , https://www.cbr.com/teen-titans-best-worst-costumes-ranked/ , https://screenrant.com/comics-greatest-superheroes-marvel-dc-ranked/ , https://screenrant.com/dceu-the-batman-b-list-villains-gotham/ , http://www.cbr.com/the-best-female-fighters-in-mortal-kombat/ , https://www.cbr.com/good-and-bad-thundercats/ , https://io9.gizmodo.com/all-31-thundercats-and-their-foes-ranked-1767083095 and https://www.cbr.com/valuable-thundercats-toys/ , http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/the-top-50-greatest-heroes-villains-of-all-time-total-film-compiled-list/ , https://web.archive.org/web/20101224011850/http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/30.html , and so on.
What should we do? Should those lists be culled? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
In the last month, I've twice happened upon articles which show books written by the long-dead subject with links to google books. Formerly, the links would open to a selection from the book or article being referenced, but now many show as no-ebook available and lead only to purchase links. Last year I believe I saw an article in which similar Amazon purchase links were removed by another editor, and presumed that was because such naked commercialism was against some wikipedia policy. In the case of historian William B. Hesseltine (whose books were reissued several times before he died in 1963, well after the long-standing 1923 U.S. copyright cutoff date, now minimally extended), I knew some works were available free at Hathi Trust, so substituted those links for the google link, and also noted where the google link was purchase-only not a ref. Yesterday I came across similar links in the case of the linguist Edward Southey Joynes, who died in 1917. I sent a message to the talk page of the administrator/editor who had checked the links on August 15, and he suggested I contact another administrator, who (before I checked my email because of scammer calls that have plagued me) suggested I post here. I really am not a great technician, but prefer to spend whatever time I can spare adding content (such as local background and slaveholdings in yesterday's Joynes articles) that overseas editors (much less readers) can't otherwise access. I don't have time to spend hours learning and parsing various wikipedia policies, much less get caught in long discussion threads. Is there a wikipedia policy against purchase links? Or has google just changed its public domain works access policy? Jweaver28 ( talk) 19:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Are https://web.archive.org/web/20160305074921/http://txy.chnrailway.com/news/20120827095100.shtml and http://cxnews.zjol.com.cn/cxnews/system/2013/07/01/016597095.shtml RS for information about the station? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
WION News has a reputation that is unusual in India for being not state-owned but still spreading alot of nationalistic propaganda. They seem to be more of a rumor mill which puts out articles after reliable sources like Times of India or Doordoshan News. The best analogy might be Breibart News in the US. I would say that thier written articles are much better than thier youtube channel, but again, thats not saying much. Albertaont ( talk) 04:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
To me it looks reliable. You have not provided any cases where Wion has allegedly spread nationalistic propaganda and it seems like that is at a minimum needed to establish that this media channel is a serial purveyor of fake news. I would also say that the political connections of the founder shouldn't be enough to automatically disqualify the newspaper from being used. Many media outlets in the West are founded by people with political connections. From what I have seen of their reporting, especially reporting on world news, their articles and videos are incredibly well researched. Full of details that surpasses even the ones from Europe and English speaking countries. Many of the personalities working there used to work for other major media outlets and sometimes they interview leading experts from around the world to discuss various issues too.
Fortliberty (
talk) 16:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC) see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton
I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, as this discussion is not formatted as a formal request for comment. Please see WP:RFC for a guide on the RfC process. — Newslinger talk 08:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Wafa.ps is the news agency of the Palestinian National Authority (the interim government in the PA), as such it should not be considered a RS and should only be used with inline attribution, when absolutely necessary. It is currently being used in many articles, and especially in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area where it surely shouldn't be used at all. I would love to depreciate it considering there is absolutely zero fact checking but I just want to open this up for discussion. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Er, yes, WAFA is a very reliable news agency. Not sure why you would think otherwise? By Western standards, its web site is bare bones, but that is an advantage to Palestinians who browse with bandwidth-limited mobile phones. Generally, if Israel bombs Gaza, WAFA will have something up within a few hours at most.
True, WAFA "spins" news; if Israel bombs Gaza, WAFA might "forget" to note that PIJ fired rockets into Israel earlier in the day. But that is par for the course and Israeli media is equally guilty of "spinning" news. WAFAs factual reporting is very rarely incorrect. Furthermore, its reporting is often more detailed than Israeli or Western sources. While they might report: "Israel bombed targets in Gaza," WAFA might report: "Israeli warplanes struck three targets in Gaza; Khan Younis, Rafah and Beit Hanoun, causing material damage but no injuries." If what it reports isn't cross-checked, it will report it as "according to local sources ... " or "according to local activist Mohammed Something ..." exactly like other news agencies.
WAFA is frequently cited by other Middle Eastern media houses. For example, by IMEMC, Anadolu Agency, Al-Monitor, Middle East Monitor, and Palestine Chronicle. It's even cited by Israeli news sites like Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, and Haaretz. And by UN's media reviews.
If that isn't enough to convince you, then I don't know what would. Sometimes, when Palestinians are killed by Israeli soldiers, B'Tselem publishes investigative reports months later. For example, here is WAFA's report of the killing of Ibrahim Mustafa Abu-Yaaqoub and here is B'Tselem's investigation. As seen, their reports correlate well.
Frankly, I'm alarmed by this campaign to blacklist more and more news sources. The effect is that events that Western media doesn't think are important can't be noted on Wikipedia. There is no replacement for WAFA. If you blacklist that (and by extension, all Palestinian news outlets that are objectively worse), the end result would be that you'd have exactly zero Palestinian news agencies that would be permissible on Wikipedia. And it doesn't stop there, you'd have to blacklist the vast majority of African, Middle Eastern and Latin American news agencies too. ImTheIP ( talk) 03:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
A 16-year-old Palestinian was shot in the foot by an Israeli soldier during clashes in Beit Ummar north of Hebron.[10]I fail to see how prefixing this sentence with "According to Wafa, ..." makes anything better. Can one remove the "according to Wafa" if MEMO writes about the clashes or does one have to wait until (and if) the Jerusalem Post covers it? Does the "according to" have to be applied to COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine? "According to WAFA, Mai Alkaila confirmed 806 new cases ... According to WAFA, Mai Alkaila confirmed 433 new case ... According to WAFA, ai Alkaila confirmed 632 ne ..."
The same report notes that WAFA also has pig conspiracy theories:Rats have become an Israeli weapon to displace and expel Arab residents of the occupied Old City of Jerusalem
In case you were wondering, they are stilling doing it in 2017: [31]( copy)Wafa , controlled and funded by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' office, has in the past accused Israel of using wild pigs to drive Palestinians out of their homes and fields in the West Bank.
11Fox11 ( talk) 06:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)A wild pig attacked, on Friday night, a 10-year-old child in the town of Yamoun ... Palestinians say Israeli settlers let wild pigs run loose in the fields to attack farmers and villagers as a way to keep them off their land.
A 16-year-old Palestinian was shot in the foot by an Israeli soldier during clashes in Beit Ummar north of Hebron.[10]", WAFA can be used. This statement is not controversial. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 12:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The Palestine News and Information Agency (WAFA) was founded by the PLO in 1972. In 1994 it became part of the Palestinian Authority (PA). It was reformed between 2008 and 2011 to bring it closer to the presidency. Donor pressure unhappy with what they saw as inciting content was perhaps the reason. [2] WAFA, the Palestinian Public Radio and Television Corporation, and Al-Hayat al-Jadeeda (daily news) are the main media channels of the PA. All Fatah-affiliated. Only WAFA publishes in English.
There are only a handful news orgs based in the OPTs publishing in English. WAFA's competitors are the Hamas-affiliated Quds News Network, the "independent" Palestinian Information Center (PIC), and the palestine news network (pnn). Their reporting is more often than not derivative of WAFA's. For example, WAFA's report about settlers attacking olive harvesters is the basis for both pnn's short article and PIC's article. Thus, if you blacklist WAFA you have to blacklist these news orgs too since they publish rewrites of WAFA's articles.
How does WAFA make news? Like all other wire services it relies on a network of freelancers. When they see stuff happen, they record it on video, they take photos, and they talk to witnesses. Then they send their material to WAFA which publishes it. If the news is interesting enough, it is broadcast on tv, otherwise it's just pushed on the news feed. Exactly how all other wire services in the world operate. And it is not true that WAFA has no editorial control. Kholoud Assaf is WAFA's editor-in-chief.
Here is a bunch of reporting from the BBC that in part or in full relies on WAFA:
1999: [32], [33], 2001: [34], 2002: [35], [36], [37], [38], 2003: [39], [40], 2006: [41], 2007: [42], [43], [44], [45], 2011: [46], 2012: [47], [48], 2013: [49], [50], [51], 2014: [52], 2015: [53], 2016: [54], [55], [56], 2017: [57], 2018: [58], [59], [60], 2019: [61], [62], 2020: [63], [64]
By no means is this an exhaustive list - there are hundreds more BBC articles that cite WAFA and a similar list could be made for virtually every news org in the world. Just to drive the point home that WAFA is reliable and has been around for a loong time, here is some of WaPo's reporting from the Lebanese Civil War in the late 70's early 80's that in part or in full relies on WAFA:
1977: [65], 1978: [66], [67], [68], [69], 1979: [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], 1980: [76], [77], [78], [79], 1981: [80], [81], [82], 1982: [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], 1983: [93], [94], [95], [96], [97] , 1985: [98]
In these artices WaPo is actually sourcing WAFA for facts. For example, in
this article from 1981 WaPo writes in its
lead paragraph: Waves of Israeli warplanes bombed heavily populated Palestinian neighborhoods in Beirut and targets in southern Lebanon today, killing at least 123 persons and wounding hundreds more in Israel's most devastating attack here since its invasion in 1978.
How does WaPo know that at least 123 persons were killed? It relies on WAFA: As of late afternoon, the Palestinian news agency WAFA reported that the death toll had reached 123 but later the Phalangist radio put the figure at 150.
ImTheIP (
talk) 15:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The townspeople have been working together to shore up the ruins of the 12th century King's Castle that dominates their Galilee skyline under the guidance of local archaeologist Rabei Khamisy, the Haaretz newspaper reports.Is the BBC taking "full responsibility"?
The Palestinian official news agency Wafa quoted the attorney-general as saying that Mr Aloul had reported fire dust in the respiratory canal, meaning the victim had "inhaled this material while he was burnt alive".Is the BBC taking "full responsibility"?
The same report notes that WAFA also has pig conspiracy theories:Rats have become an Israeli weapon to displace and expel Arab residents of the occupied Old City of Jerusalem
In case you were wondering, they are stilling doing it in 2017: [102]( copy)Wafa , controlled and funded by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' office, has in the past accused Israel of using wild pigs to drive Palestinians out of their homes and fields in the West Bank.
11Fox11 ( talk) 06:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)A wild pig attacked, on Friday night, a 10-year-old child in the town of Yamoun ... Palestinians say Israeli settlers let wild pigs run loose in the fields to attack farmers and villagers as a way to keep them off their land.
There is a Western tradition of treating Palestinians as liars-by-default. Unless confirmed by a non-Arab, a Palestinian's claim is more often than not seen as "the product of the well-known over-imaginative Arab mind."
The "wild pigs" story described by 11Fox11 sounds similarly outlandish if you don't know about the context.
The West Bank population of wild boars have exploded in the recent decades and is a serious menace. Why the population has exploded is unknown; some blame the construction of the West Bank barrier, others the decline of the number of hyenas which are the wild boars natural predators.
A single pack of wild boars can inflict almost catastrophic destruction to agricultural lands. Palestinian farmers are effectively defenseless against wild boar attacks; they are neither allowed to have firearms nor to kill them using poison traps. Settlers, on the other hand are, and they shot at wild boars that get too close to their settlements. Wild boars are wickedly smart animals and learn to stay away from settlements and instead they gather in Palestinian areas. [3]
Many Palestinians are afraid of wild boars and consider them unclean animals. Fully-grown wild boars weigh upwards of 200 kg. An attacking wild boars can cause serious injury to children. Palestinian farmers fault Israel for refraining from culling the wild boar population. They also suspect that it is part of a strategy to make their lives miserable. Likewise, some farmers fault settlers for letting wild boars roam instead of shooting them.
There have been multiple reports of settlers using wild boars to harass Palestinians. Nothing has (afaik) been confirmed. Thus, we don't know if the reports are true or the product of over-imaginative Arab minds. Settlers have probably not dumped truckloads of wild boars into Palestinian areas. However, it is not beyond the pale to suspect that armed extremist settlers have intentionally driven packs of wild boars into Palestinian built-up areas and agricultural lands. There is an infamous settlement known as Yitzhar in the Northern West Bank and its inhabitants are known to act like utter pricks against their Palestinian neighbours. [4]
Here are some reporting on the wild boar problem:
The al-Quds article is very indepth and interviews numerous Palestinian officials and farmers affected by the wild boars. A number of them claim that settlers have "released wild boars" and a number of them claim to have been injured by wild boars. I cannot tell if the article is "pure propaganda". If it is, then it's damn convincing propaganda.
Let's investigate the Wafa article in question:
A wild pig attacked on Friday night a 10-year-old child in the town of Yamoun, west of Jenin, causing her injury in her hand, according to local sources. They said Alaa Houshieh was admitted to hospital after she as bit in her hand by a pig.
Note that the story is credited to local sources and that the report doesn't mention settlers.
Palestinians say Israeli settlers let wild pigs run loose in the fields to attack farmers and villagers as a way to keep them off their land.
That is indeed what many Palestinians say.
The residents, who say they never before had wild pigs in the West Bank until the settlers came there, have urged the Palestinian Authority to help get rid of the wild pigs in their areas, which have become a threat to them, particularly children.
The first part is, afaik, an exaggeration; wild boars are indigenous to the West Bank, even though they are a much bigger problem now than ever before. Wafa's report is one-sided - it doesn't give the settlers nor the Israeli government's view of the story - but the actual reporting seem to be sound: a 10-year-old girl in Yamoun was bit in the hand by a wild boar, according to local sources.
CNN touches on the wild boars problem in 3 cars torched, mosque defaced in West Bank:
"This is not the first time Deir Istiya village (has) come under attack by the settlers," Salman said. "Deir Istiya is surrounded by nine Israeli settlements, and we are attacked and harassed by settlers on daily basis." Salman said settlers released some 300 wild pigs into the farming fields of the village, which destroyed and damaged the seasonal crops of the Palestinian farmers.
I frankly fail to see much difference between CNN's take and Wafa's. Here is one article in the BBC about Israeli "guard pigs":
Rabbis back Israeli 'guard pigs'
Under Jewish law, pigs are seen as unclean
An organisation in Israel has gained rabbinical approval to train pigs to guard Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
If that article had been published in Wafa it would have been called blood libel. But now it's published in the BBC. So what gives? Last year the Jerusalem Post reported that Israeli scientists would have
"a complete cure for cancer in a year". Earlier this year it was fooled to publish
slanderous op-eds by deepfaked author profiles. Wafa is absolutely not the best news agency, but it is also far from the worst. As a source for incident reports, e.g. A 16-year-old Palestinian was shot in the foot by an Israeli soldier during clashes in Beit Ummar north of Hebron.[10]
, it is very reliable.
ImTheIP (
talk) 22:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Oxfam has also described boar attacks: here is a constantly present risk of seeing the settlers turn up in the fields to attack Palestinian farmers – a frequent occurrence here. In addition to this violence, there is also the tactic of letting loose wild boars, which wreck crops and scare the villagers.
[5] According to
Arutz Sheva,
Combatants for Peace has also spread the wild boars story.
[6] I don't think the boar story is true, but I also don't think it is proof that Wafa is unreliable since so many other media outlets have featured it (among them CNN).
ImTheIP (
talk) 01:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
In 2008, rat infestation was a major problem in Jerusalem. [7] The Muslim quarter is densely built, run-down, and leaky sewage pipes are common. [8] Perfect conditions for rats. Hasan Khater exists and he has complained about Israeli policies in East Jerusalem (which the Old City is part of). [9] One common complaint among Palestinians is that Israel is trying to "Judaize" Jerusalem (i.e. increase the fraction of the population that is Jewish). Palestinians allege that as part of this goal, Israel denies them permits for construction and renovation works.
There exists groups of aggressive religious settlers that tries to take over Palestinian property in Jerusalem. [10] The quotes from the supposed Wafa article (I haven't been able to find the original article) implies that it is these groups that are described ("dozens of settlers come to the alleyways and streets of the Old City"). If Wafa has reported a rumour about them releasing rats as if it were facts, that is of course wrong. However, calling it anti-Semitic blood libel is a stretch. Persistent rumors about organ harvesting circulated among Palestinians in the 1990s. They were also "anti-Semitic blood libel" until they were proven true. It's hard to know what is fact or fiction.
Perhaps it is also relevant that the Jerusalem Post journalist that wrote the article, Khaled Abu Toameh, is a fellow at the Gatestone Institute, run by Amir Taheri... ImTheIP ( talk) 01:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Israel-related animal conspiracy theories refers. There, the rat nonsense is referenced to an opinion piece of 2008 in an Irish newspaper that I found in the wayback machine. It says the story was in two Palestinian newspapers but does not mention their names and specifically does not mention WAFA. So the article misrepresents the source to have said WAFA, when it does not. I think I have wasted quite enough time on this tripe. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
"Is Wafa an RS?" is far too broad a question to answer. Is there a specific use of Wafa that you want evaluated? What's the context for this request? These broad deprecation discussions are really getting out of hand. WP:RSN used to be for specific questions about whether sources were reliable in specific contexts, not general free-for-all discussions about all aspects of a source. Wafa is a major news agency. It will probably be reliable in most contexts, but like many news agencies, there are probably specific contexts in which it should be used with caution or compared against other sources (e.g., for highly contentious subjects in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you might want to compare what Palestinian, Israeli and international news agencies are reporting). A specific question is answerable. A general discussion about whether Wafa is at all reliable will lead nowhere, or worse, will end up with yet another overly broad deprecation of the kind we've seen too often over the past year. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Every WAFA story has a grain of truth. The typical mold is that something bad happened in Palestine, and usually that has some factual basis. However WAFA typically presents such events as being controlled and directed by Israel, settlers, or "the Jews". Thus, Israel is responsible for rain, in 2015 WAFA published: Israel Floods Gaza Neighborhood with Rainwater, stating as a factual assertion that:
Almost every year, the Israeli authorities open the floodgates to their dams in the direction of Gaza and without prior notice, to discharge massive quantities of water that had accumulated due to the heavy rains in the Naqab region.
However, this was pure fake news, there are no dams that allow for control of flow of water in the Wadi, according to AFP:
But no such dam exists in Israel that could control the flow of water into Gaza, according to a team of AFP reporters on the ground as well as interviews with Israeli and international experts.
This outright lie by WAFA is typical, spinning the events of the moment to suit political purposes, even when the lie itself is easily refuted as false. Vici Vidi ( talk) 05:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Floods generally occur in the wadis only once every two years. The peak discharge and thus flood volumes are directly related to catchment size (Amit et al., 2007). Generally, water runs in the Gaza Strip wadis for a short time during the winter season; they remain dry for the rest of the year. Flooding in the Gaza Strip rarely occurs, and seems to take place only when the volumes of water in Israeli dams exceed their capacities. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the wadis in the Gaza Strip.
There are small fixed diversion dams, that if at all reduce flood surges towards Gaza, and that are fixed stone structures. The allegation that Israel opened dams was false, as dams with control structures that could cause such a large release do not exist. Al Jazeera retracted, even the WP:DAILYMAIL [103] retracted. WAFA printed bullshit (and this is basic geography any local source should know, this is hardly an honest mistake), it did not bother to retract, it is still sitting with all its fake glory with no attribution. They even continue to repeat the dam bullshit years later: January 2019, January 2020, a regular January story on WAFA, ignored just like any other fake WAFA story. Vici Vidi ( talk) 15:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)What does exist here is a low stone structure, barely a metre high, next to a shallow concrete channel, which is sometimes referred to as a "diversion dam" -- whose purpose is to slow the flow of water so some of it can be diverted into a nearby reservoir for irrigation purposes, Kretschmer explained. It has no gates, nor openings, and when the flood waters hit, they simply glide over it as if it did not exist. "If it does anything, it actually reduces the quantity of water flowing towards Gaza, and not the opposite," Shahaf said.
Working on articles dealing with involvement of hackers for instance
I come across the media outlet the Insider( [104]) for above mentioned case specifically "Clown" from the GRU. Who hacked into Angela Merkel's mail? A search on wikipedia revealed the source domain used previously , but the media outlet does not seem to have an article describing it on enwiki. Do we know anything about the media outlet? The media outlet is mentioned in the Awards section of Bellingcat but not in the European Press Prize article listing the aforementioned award. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 17:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Fox is correctly considered dubious for politics, does this prevent use of Fox as a source for political endorsements? Guy ( help! - typo?) 13:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:POLEND states:
This was adopted after a community-wide RfC and is an obvious extension of WP:BLP given the potential impact of an erroneous claim of endorsement of one candidate or another.
a publication founded by a public relations firm at the behest of the Kazakh government( source)
Would other editors agree that we should not use these sources to describe Kazakhstan's human rights and environmental record? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 22:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Is theaerodrome.com/ a reliable source? Context:
this is in use on
Friedrich Ritter von Röth. Rationale provided upon request by GA nominator was It is run by the very same authors who write authoritative aviation history books for Grub Street and Osprey Publishing. I doubt they tell the truth in print and lie on the website.
I'm inclined to agree, but would appreciate a second opinion.
Eddie891
Talk
Work 02:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Worth having a productive discussion about these sources; the only meaningful thread I've found on RSN barely touched on the issue and mostly glanced off into irrelevance so it'd be nice to go back and have a more productive look. My main concern is the use of these publications:
These sources are used throughout Wikipedia. The publications' wikipedia articles are heavily reliant on primary sourcing (which should hopefully be addressed at some point, but that's not neither here nor there), and are pretty terrible in terms of suggesting what makes them reliable.
The Skeptical Inquirer says they do some review of published work, but that it's primarily up to authors, which isn't a good sign. [111] The UK Sceptic used to say allows people to post blog posts, which means it seems like it would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis per WP:SPS [112] (the language is now gone on their current page, but doesn't really speak to how the blogs are run at all.) The US Skeptic actually has a proper masthead, but doesn't say what its editorial board actually does, and doesn't mention its review process at all. [113] (As a side note none of these publications actually pay contributors, which may or may not affect quality of submissions or editing but is worth calling out as a general rule.) None of these publications as far as I can tell are included in a rigorous citation index. My judgement at present would be that they are at best highly situational and probably need justification on a case-by-case basis per SPS based on who is writing them, as there are skeptics related to or attached to the magazines that have been quoted or profiled more extensively by publications such as the NYT, et al. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:29, 9 October 2020 (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.
I believe that Fox News, Fox Business, and any other right-wing sources like Breitbart, New York Post is unreliable because they are very poor fact-checking when reporting about crime, and social issues and afiliated with far-right organization. When i cite any economic news, i don't want to cite it to Fox News and similar website, instead i more rely to BBC, France 24, and anymore that i fact more high quality reliable. Also when i cite international events, i would more cite on BBC than any right wing media like RT, CGTN, Fox, and many more that i considered low quality non-reliable. Should all or most right wing media be deprecated as reliable source? 182.1.228.70 ( talk) 03:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't spend my life at RSN, and probably like a number of other editors the first point at which I realise something has got depreciated is with a change to an article on my watchlist. In this case this edit on the MGWR on Sir Ralph Smith Cusack altering me to WP:DEPS and a bit of deft searching will find it on WP:RSP, though not under 'T' (Its under a bundle at 'P' ... its quite easy to find if one know the old ctrl+F trick). The discussion was at a title which did not initially encompass Thepeerage.com; it being a third source added subsequenctly with less prominence; leading to possible inherited tainting from the other two sites. The RFC, see 2020, had some subtantial WP:VAGUEWAVE anti self published source feeling that is not always backed by Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS seem to effectively bar the use for BLPs, so use at e.g. Jeremy Hosking is likely a problem - however that does not cover the case for the deceased biographies. The RFC was non-admin closed and had other irregularites including an unsigned comment (by JzG ), hints of some possible "antii-peerage" bias rather than concentrating on the source. The source compiler, a Darryl Lundy, has come to the attention of RSN on several occasions before, per [114]. There seems to be little doubt Darryl Lundy appears to do diligent checking and generally seems to cite his sources (usually Burks etc) and be open to notification of errors. Perhaps "unreliable" in Wikipedia speak but probably "unreliable" in real world speak. There is usually options of replacing the theppeerage.com with the cite reference or using WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT however there is really danger here of people simply replacing thepeerage.com with the underlying source without checking the underlying source. While the closure of the RFC may be technically correct and allows Wikipedian to smugly dismiss Darryl theppeerage.com as "unreliable" in Wikipedia world at Midland Great Western Railway seems almost slanderous at first reading. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Djm-leighpark ( talk) 14:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven thankyou for agreeing the bundling in the RSP list source column should be unbundled. Given my current intake of stout I will now recuse from this discussion as I am inclined to use language I learnt to be necessary to request a pony to reverse a haycart shifter under a cock of hay and per the your contributions on my talk page such comments would likely be inappropriate. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 21:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys I'm new to all this but I need a little assistant, I was editing the BROS the time page and used article from magazine published 17-9-1990 in relation to article discussing the success of bros two studio albums in the article its states that bros sold over 16 million albums with just 2 studio albums this being PUSH and the time, the article cites the PUSH was CBS bestselling debut album in the history of the record label, then can also been found on several blogs, site and media publication.
the magazine was published by Art Music and editor's were Anthony George, Katie Watkins, Marvin Jackson, Stephen Miller, the magazine was INDEPENDANT magazine such as those Smash Hit's and had know association with bros, their management. now I was editing the page adding the sales published in the article and was some targeted by two editor who reverted edits but could not provide any evidence to why they disproved the edit. i have been told numerous things, editors accepting the edit and others reverting the edit with valid explanation or help in away. I found 5 different sources all stating the same below are couple of links
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Bros_article_1990.jpg permission granted https://www.discogs.com/artist/81613-Bros/images https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1233382783669521&set=p.1233382783669521&__cft__[0]=AZVHZ6hp-6VfDz95oBjmDRfEKqMcFS4QOk9FKaXfKr5qbz4S3QN1bZib4VqDaAA06jKJCemLBt1b9BJg-agkDWqMn2HeJO_7XZM7GrUb97Slk4UWFjvSAl6k20vmh6kH3bCOckEIvcnjhVxWO3l5kdxFMXdFBjOxcMUMq4tbEXpayPuXM08jztTRe8qCMYn9O5wXJTV6Vxoqc1rtoIyGnUWrsU_eWDe-l9Vl77lPMPhGAQ&__tn__=EH-y-R http://www.brosusic.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3136:4500:ED89:CF30:324A:32D ( talk)
the question is are magazine article sources that can be used on wiki is very simple after checking WR.PS answer yes and it's not up to uploaded editor to disprove its edits but the editor who can disprove the source. this how people win court cases the defendant but disprove the claimant case if they can't the source show be allowed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3136:4500:ED89:CF30:324A:32D ( talk)
Have there been prior discussions of this site? My own opinion is that the information is unreliable unless the author of a particular piece is known asan expert, and that it's interviews exists for the purpose of PR. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
AS per the advice of Newslinger, I am proposing applying WP:IAR to using the Daily Mail as a source for interviews with the co-signers who are not getting enough media coverage or the opportunity to express their views. In WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail, the following paragraph said "Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case.". Right now, the Great Barrington Declaration article is in a very bad shape; a reader who reads this article won't get any context about the declaration or why the people who signed the declaration did it, and will have to go elsewhere on the Internet due to the lack of information in the article. In addition to the lack of WP:NPOV, the article in its current status will fit more with the title "Responses to the Great Barrington Declaration" than the current title. Consequently, I feel it is warranted to apply WP:IAR to include more context about the declaration and the reasons the signers/co-signers signed it for. Since many of the co-signers didn't get the chance to appear in main stream media due to the highly politicized nature of the subject, I feel that this is one of the exceptional cases that WP:IAR should apply to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail specially that it includes only interviews with co-signers (window for co-signers to express their opinions) not factual information. What do you think? And will it help if I added an introductory statement like "In an interview with the Daily Mail" to warn the reader about the source? Knowledge Contributor0 ( talk) 19:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard ( talk) 08:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.
For the record, we WP:IAR'd already in the Great_Barrington_Declaration#Authors section, citing an interview in Jacobin and pointing to some editorials the authors had published, some of which i did not see mentioned in other RS. fiveby( zero) 21:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
If its important RS will have picked it up, if they have not neither should we. The Daily Myth makes up quotes, alters it own historical content. It cannot be trusted. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Given that we're talking content that also falls into the realm of MEDRS (that is, the proposed Declaration appears to have numerous medical experts calling it a Bad Idea (TM)) FRINGE likely applies and we should be wary of necessarily giving too much weight to the rational/science behind the declaration unless those are also backed by MEDRS-type sourcing. Which the DM is clearly not. -- Masem ( t) 16:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintainingWP, then (and only then) does IAR apply. Adding quotes which may be fabricated and have no reliable source is not an improvement or maintenance of WP. Therefore in this instance IAR does not apply and the rule not to include information sourced to the Daily Mail should be followed. Cambial foliage❧ 12:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a forum for gathering wider opinion of the community, not for individuals to hammer away at the same point endlessly to all who differ. You opened a proposition for discussion, and within 3 days more than ten editors responded firmly in the negative, with barely a flicker of support. You have your answer. Cambial foliage❧ 22:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
As I believe I waited enough to hear all arguments that can be raised, I think that the result is: almost every user rejected the proposal. For the sake of reference for any future discussion specially about policies, here is a summary of all arguments raised against and for the proposal.
Against:
For:
Knowledge Contributor0 ( talk) 22:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)
Is The Globe Post reliable for this edit? Please note that the content is verified by this source, too. -- Mhhossein talk 03:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
No. Can't find a correction's policy on their site. Adoring nanny ( talk) 03:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Source:
https://www.bestplaces.net/religion/city/oregon/portland
Article:
Portland, Oregon
claim "Of the 35.9% of the city's residents who do identify as religious, Roman Catholics make up the largest group, at 15.8%"
The page is fully loaded with ads, does not show the source of data, when the data was gathered or compiled. There was same discussion in
2018 with no comment.
Graywalls (
talk) 20:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I came upon
this survey by the Group for Analyzing, &c., hereafter Gamaan. Not only are the parts of the pie chart misaligned, it also purports that not more than one third of Iranians are Shia Muslims. I have no genuine hard evidence to back it up, but based on the wealth of other similarly recent sources also provided in this article, I find this survey's results to be totally preposterous.
Another inaccuracy in Gamaan's survey results exists in this document, a segment of which reads:
68% [of respondents] stated that they do not intend to vote in the parliamentary elections (Islamic Consultative Assembly) of March 2020, while 18% said that they will participate in the elections. Approximately 14% said they haven’t decided yet.
The turnout for these elections (which were actually held in February) was 42%. Making the (unreasonable) assumption that the entirety of respondents who said they would participate in the elections in addition to those who said that they had not decided all participated in the election still results in a 10% discrepancy between the statements of respondents to the poll and the actual behavior of Iranians.
Indeed the fact that these surveys are conducted online is a major cause of their unreliability, especially in Iran which is a conservative society resulting in even more left-wing and secular bias among internet users than is found in Western countries. For example, of respondents to the question "Who did you vote for in the 2017 presidential election?", 64% had voted for Hassan Rouhani and 4% had voted for Ebrahim Raisi, despite the actual results of the election being 41% for Rouhani and 28% for Raisi.
Generally I consider that this organisation is an unreliable source and ought not be given as much precedence as it currently is. Beaneater ( talk) 09:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Which of the following best describes the reliability of forces-war-records.co.uk?
FDW777 ( talk) 15:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Briefly discussed at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311#forces-war-records.co.uk, however in the course of my cleanup some additional information has come to my attention. There are pages such as
Prisoners of War of the Japanese 1939-1945 which do mention using Wikipedia as a reference (scroll all the way down to where it says Some of the material on this page was also partially derived from
but without saying what information comes from where, rendering all information on the page worthless. However, in addition to that there are pages such as
Unit History: Joint Services Command and Staff College (JSCSC) which was being used on the
Cormorant article, and which doesn't mention any references at all. However that page says;
Our article Joint Services Command and Staff College says;
Since that demonstrates they are also apparently using Wikipedia as a reference without mentioning it, potentially every single page is worthless. FDW777 ( talk) 15:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The HAF is an unreliable source that has many allegations against its mission of neutrality. Here is a list of articles and references that I would point to, to argue that HAF has a history of bias, notably to Christianity.
https://www.hinduamerican.org https://theintercept.com/2019/09/25/howdy-modi-trump-hindu-nationalism/ https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/tulsi-gabbard-2020-hindu-nationalist-modi/ http://circulate.it/r/7BUUNlbcRMitBCVM7DqFjo9PMgZKQJlIQfUQdf23YM3rOZbHFzYXkWKbdgFtWj9IAuBulBtWJNS-32yI7dl9_nVnkfs/www.coalitionagainstgenocide.org/press/cag.pr.07apr2014.php (this article speaks to "Hindu American Foundation exposed as foe of human rights and religious freedom") http://www.coalitionagainstgenocide.org/press/cag.pr.22apr2014.php http://www.coalitionagainstgenocide.org/press/cag.pr.22dec2013.php http://www.coalitionagainstgenocide.org/press/cag.pr.06dec2013.php (this article demonstrates the HAF's supremacist ideology through smear campaign against CAG and Indian Muslims — anti-Christian AND anti-Muslim)
This source is being cited on the Gospel For Asia Wikipedia page.
I am editing a page where some court documents are used as inline citations. I have heard -- but cannot seem to confirm -- whether such court documents can in fact be used as a reference within a wiki page. On the one hand, the document is either a complaint or a response to a complaint, and as such is a document where the two parties don't seem to agree on the facts.... so that would lead me to think lawsuit documents cannot be used. BUT - you sign them under the agreement of truth, so that should stand for something? Also, if a news outlet reports on a story and uses information from court documents, as long as that particular media outlet is reliable, then that could be used, but since it would be just a regurgitation of the court documents, doesn't that lean toward "yes" court documents are considered a valid reference in a wiki page? Help! Thanks in advance. -- 10Sany1? ( talk) 21:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
For reasons quite beyond the court's control, its opinion must be treated cautiously as a source of actual facts. Because the defendant was appealing a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the court was under an obligation to view all the evidence in a way most favorable to the plaintiffs and essentially to ignore evidence in the record that might be favorable to the defendant. See id. at 773, 820, 174 Cal. Rptr. at 359, 388. In fact, Ford's basic position at trial-which the court's opinion at no point mentions-was that the approaching car (a Ford Galaxie) had not slowed down at all, and had struck the Gray car at a speed in excess of 50 miles per hour. There was an enormous amount of evidence at trial supporting each of the parties' factual claims as to the Galaxie's closing speed. Had the jury accepted Ford's speed estimate, there would not have been much of an issue of crashworthiness: for the plaintiffs' position throughout trial was that even a state-of-the-art fuel system could not maintain integrity in a 50 mile-per hour collision.
References
Say what you will about the unreliable source, this is excellent: 5 Easy Ways to Spot a B.S. News Story on the Internet -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
One in five Mail stories is made up? This is a "fundamental truth" now is it? Who even writes such obvious nonsense? -Christine O'Connell (freelance journalist) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Christine O'Connell (
talk •
contribs) Blocked sock.
David Gerard (
talk) 21:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
In the RSP list, they're green, just like regular Forbes and no distinction is made between contributors and staff. What is the reliability of non-staff articles on the Intercept like this one used in Proud Boys? That author does not have a publisher issued email address and he was not in the staff roster of the time that story was originally published. Another piece I randomly chose on their website https://theintercept.com/2020/10/19/blacks-for-trump-maurice-symonette-cult/ is authored by someone with a publisher email address and rostered in their current list. Are all pieces on The Intercept treated as reliable or are their contributor pieces similar to WP:FORBESCON ? Graywalls ( talk) 05:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Distractify is described by The New York Times as "a viral content site that fills Facebook news feeds with feel-good posts built largely on repackaging content from other websites" ( NYT). Crunchbase describes it as "creates and covers what's trending on the internet", and with only 2 "current team members" ( C). SimilarWeb states "specializes in content that sparks conversations around news, entertainment and pop culture" ( SW). Distractify is increasingly being used as a source, including in BLPs (e.g. blp). Should brakes be applied on the use of this website as a "reliable source"? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I recently came across a citation on the page Urdu language, a language spoken in South Asia. It is to a grant proposal appearing on the internet: here. There is no indication that the proposal was funded, let alone a publication resulted in a peer-reviewed journal or book. The Principal Investigator (PI) has put other proposals on the internet; in some cases, they are preliminary ones, only a little more detailed than Letters of Intent. ( Most proposals have sections on the broad subject area of the topic being proposed and a review of the previous research. It is such a section that is being appealed to in the citation on Urdu.) The PI seems to be some kind of a digitized font programmer for different language scripts; the statement moreover being appealed to is in the background section on the history of the language and the script (in which the PI is not necessarily an expert). He has all sorts of other proposals on the internet on Soyombo script of Mongolia and Japan, Maithili Script of eastern India, Elymaic Script of Western Iran. I am looking for a clear statement of Wikipedia policy about citing such proposals. I would imagine it would have been spelled out by now. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)