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 315 | ← | Archive 319 | Archive 320 | Archive 321 | Archive 322 | Archive 323 | → | Archive 325 |
Hello, this is my first time posting on this particular page. I was wondering whether or not this source was considered generally reliable. I did not find many discussions about it in the archives, none of which went in-depth about its reliability. From what research I have done it appears to be a tabloid affiliated with News Corp, whose New York Post is considered generally unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It also appears to have a conservative slant, but that of course doesn't make a source unreliable. There also appears to be some regional difference in the use of the word "tabloid" that I, as an American, may just not fully understand.
For context, I have raised my concerns about the source at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Fimmano and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stella Rigon. My arguments were generally more concerned with the significance of the coverage for the former, but I still wanted additional input on the use of this source generally. I appreciate the input! Jay eyem ( talk) 16:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
not related to reliability of source
|
---|
|
70% of Australia's mainstream media, a field which would also include a strong state-owned media presence. Is there a source supporting the 70% figure? - Ryk72 talk 06:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Does this Fox News article, which states "Her goals include outlawing abortion, protecting gun rights and fighting "big tech censorship" of conservative viewpoints.", support the statement "Greene supports criminalizing abortion." for the Marjorie Taylor Greene article? Fox News is yellow for politics, and Greene is a living person, but if Fox is simply repeating what Greene told them, it's probably accurate, right? feminist (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The "Circumcision Information and Resource Page" (cirp.org) has a "reference library" (cirp.org/library/) which is linked 750 times from the English wikipedia. [5] It hosts third-party publications such as book extracts and journal articles on the topic of circumcision.
Some issues:
Thought on what to do about this? An entry in WP:RSP and/or blacklisting? Whatever, it seems like some cleanup is needed. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
ImTheIP. WP:MEDRS sources generally need to be secondary and recent. This is getting off-topic but yes, the term "ridged band" seems to have been taken up by John Taylor in the 1990s and became part of the circumcision activist lore (another vital anatomical structure that circumcision destroys!). Indeed on the front page of cirp.org viewers are encouraged to visit the "Ridged Band" web site. Yet, if we get up-to-date, the term seems to have no lasting mainstream currency and the only recent WP:MEDRS secondary independent source I can find (Cox et al. 2015. PMID 26185672) had this to say:
The “ridged band” seems to be a name used for the concertinaed distal skin that becomes stretched for retraction over the glans. We consider that such a conformation is merely a matter of individual idiosyncrasy and not a universal feature. Furthermore, different illustrations of the so-called “ridged band” do not appear to show the same structure ...
So presenting it as a fact in Wikipedia, even identifying it (as something different even from the sources) on the opening image caption of our Foreskin article (before I zapped it) was, to put it mildly, problematic. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@ ImTheIP: are you really suggesting we use "Bodily Integrity and the Politics of Circumcision” or did you not do any due diligence on those sources? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing in the WP:MEDRS guidelines that prohibits using a source published in 1959. And as demonstrated, finding more recent sources for the statement in question was trivial. It took me 15 minutes but I'm sure an expert could have gotten it done even quicker. Here are three more sources that reference the ridged band:
The three pro-circumcision authors Alexbrn cites, Guy Cox, Brian J. Morris, and John N. Krieger, who denies its existence, appears to be in the minority. Regardless, the correct course of action is to "upgrade" links to cirp.org to links to publishers' websites. Perhaps some would instead prefer to delete every statement sourced to cirp.org. I strenuously object. ImTheIP ( talk) 18:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
There has been disagreement over whether and how to use
this source on
Andy Ngo, as well as, to a lesser extent,
this and
this. The basic dispute has been over whether those fall under "internet culture", what internet culture means in an era where everything is online, and so on; but I wanted to ask a more general question of whether the
WP:RS/P statement that The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture
is meant to be exclusive or whether it merely means they are particularly reliable for internet culture but still reliable in general and, if the latter is the case, whether the RSP entry should be edited to indicate that they are generally reliable. --
Aquillion (
talk) 21:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I've seen ongoing discussions about using Crunchbase as a source, because it is a popular industry investor site for funding info. But none of the archived discussions distinguish between Crunchbase's user generated content, particularly their company databases and funding news collections, and their independent news reporting group, Crunchbase News.[ [11]] I'd like to add a new entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for Crunchbase News, just below Crunchbase, to distinguish the two, and would like to generate a consensus before choosing a status. While I've found their news reporting to be reliable, it would be fine to even start with a no consensus, similar to how TechCrunch is treated. This would at least keep the news sources from being dismissed outright, if they are considered guilty by association with Crunchbase's deprecated status, which also seems to have impacted the AfD perception of TechCrunch, due to the similar names. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Could someone clarify the extent to which Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context
applies? Specifically, roughly how far back do "historically" and "old" mean?
FDW777 (
talk) 14:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
On the specific question of Titanic reporting, see [14]. Any number of newspapers besides the Daily Mail got it wrong at first. Mackensen (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I raised this briefly on the talk page, but it does not look like a determination has been made regarding the reliability of CNBC. More specifically, I'd like to cite an article covering cryptocurrency such as the following: Link
Related sources NBC and MSNBC have been determined to be reliable. David Gerard raised concerns because it is cryptocurrency coverage. There are currently community wide sanctions on all cryptocurrency-related sources under WP:GS/CRYPTO that were put in place in 2018. However, nearly three years later, cryptocurrency seems to be in a different place (less mania now and more institutional and regulatory buy-in). I can understand keeping these sanctions in place for a majority of smaller cryptocurrencies, but well known ones such as Bitcoin and Ethereum are receiving consistent coverage in perennial reliable sources such as Bloomberg [1], the NY Times [2] and Forbes [3].
So my question: is CNBC a reliable source? If so, can it be used as a reliable source for cryptocurrency articles? If not, why the distinction? Thanks. HocusPocus00 ( talk) 14:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
References
@ HocusPocus00: I just read the article from start to finish twice. There are still things in it that make no sense to me, like the "sharded blockchain" quote. Overall, the entire article seems like either summations of press release material, or quotations from various Etherium or cryptocoin evangelists. My main question or concern on the particular article is that the list of interviewees or mentions is:
I don't know that it's crossing into the realm of unreliable, but I definitely feel after reading the article as if "Tech Reporter for @CNBCi" (per his Twitter self-description) Ryan Browne didn't give the reader a full or well-balanced view of the subject? IHateAccounts ( talk) 23:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Is Ahval reliable? It is supporting the following statement on Antony Blinken:
Thanks, all, for any input. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 13:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
References
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 am not aware of any current citations for Fox News. However, there has never been an extensive discussion on this noticeboard that focused exclusively on Fox News. Fox News should be deprecated. Neel.arunabh ( talk) 17:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Is Tanks Encyclopedia a reliable reference? The "Powered by WordPress" means it's a blog with a domain name. They have authors such as Gareth Lynn Montes and Marisa Belhote who don't appear to have any degreee of expertise in the subject area. FDW777 ( talk) 19:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Republic TV is an Indian-news channel. It is at present the most popular news channel and website in India. It is my personal ideology, that it isn't politically reliable, but is reliable in all other cases. I think it deserves to be in this list.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 09:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the channel is not politically 100% reliable, but it is not also 100% unreliable. So it should be shown as 'Generally Unreliable' in political status. But for non-political reliability. It should come as 'Generally Reliable'.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 12:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the Sushant Singh Rajput point. But, that was close to politics as it aimed at the Maharashtra government. But the other news on entertainment, sports, biography's, non-political headlines etc.. are 99.9% reliable. So non-political should be presented (in my opinion) as 'Generally Reliable'. -- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 13:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Tayi Arajakate I would like to point out that they had produced fake news on the Karnataka Home Minister's comments, as it was political. I wouldn't mind the politically unreliable statement. But the non-political matter is the matter. The Sushant Singh Rajput case, was related to politics. Even otherwise it was just 1 issue. Rliable sources like The Guardian also have shown unreliability in some issues. But their other articles were fair.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 13:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The misinformation on the Covid-19 pandemic were on Republic Bharat TV, which is another channel, though they are the same brand. Also the rest are all either political, or about famous people in different field, who have a strong political career. For example- check out Arundathi Roy and also the fact that Rana Ayyub has been critical of the illegal encounters in Gujarat, which was ruled by BJP. Also see [26] on BBC doing fake news. Yet, they are considered to be politically reliable, as they generally are. That is by considering the general case. The same should go for Republic as they are generally reliablr for non-political matters.
I am asking the other editors about factors like entertainment, sports and such non-political events where Republic TV is reliable.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 17:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
This discussion leads us nowhere.Let me end it. Without any conflict, let's just state that Republic is 'Generally Unreliable'. Problem solved. Now the question is - how does that work.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 09:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I request more editors to join the discussion.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 17:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: More reviews please.
The result till now is 'Generally Unreliable'. -- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 06:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I have seen Republic Bharat through my TV and found that the news reporters are enthusiastic supporters of BJP and Hinduism. They criticise the Muslims for almost anything. So, I can say that Republic Bharat is a right-wing pro-BJP pro-Hindu anti-Muslim news channel. But I don't disgrace the reliability of the news channel in non-sociopolitical topics. So I can rate the sociopolitical portion generally unreliable and non-sociopolitical portion generally reliable. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I thank @Soumya-8974 for her review, even though it is about Republic Bharat and not Republic TV. Yet as Tayi Arajakate stated that they republish each other's work and have almost the same editorial staff, the point is valid. She and myself have shared the same opinion on the matter. I look forward to more views as the present situation is still- "Generally Unreliable" in both political and non-political NEWS. The non-political reliability margins are narrow, so a result can't deduced. More comments needed.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 16:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Soumya-8974:I apologize for my confusion with the name, but in the end our points are the same. Please continue editting.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 03:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@ -ink&fables: Thank you for giving your opinion. The result at present is unreliable, please continue editing. We need more opinions.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 10:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The present result is 'Generally Unreliable'. Need more comments.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 09:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
That being said I believe editors must be carefull when using News Channels as a source as they are more opinionated than the Print Media. Newspapers and Print Media should be given priority as a source. defcon5 ( talk) 17:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
How can you challenge a claim with articles from other unreliable sources like altnews ? Because Republic has exposed a lot of scams made by political parties in India.It is under attack by those parties to discredit republic TV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.242.25 ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
There is now a discussion on whether Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic should appear in the list of unrecognised states. Several users provides multiple examples of these entities being referenced as de facto states and unrecognised states in scholarly articles and this what is written in the book Unrecognized States and Secession in the 21st Century by Riegl and Bobos:
“ | However, it has become clear that de facto states are not simply ephemeral phenomena that will collapse on their own (Broers 2013); they have demonstrated their longevity. The four de facto states in the former Soviet space have all existed for more than two decades, as has Somaliland, while Northern Cyprus has been a de facto state for four decades. Moreover, new contested territories that could be described as de facto states have emerged, most notably the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic in Ukraine. These two newest additions to the universe of de facto states have started to create some of the trappings of statehood, although the extent of ‘indigenous roots’ is still debatable | ” |
I think this is quite sufficient to include them in the list, noting differing opinions. I would love to hear outside feedback on this, along with suggestions of reliable sources which can through additional light on this. Alaexis ¿question? 09:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Obviously, it's hard to lump books by a publisher as all reliable or all unreliable but I was wondering about the general quality of Arcadia Publishing. I see the opinions that the quality of books published through Arcadia is essentially the same as if they were self-published (2009) and "Arcadia Publishing" and "academic source" have a very tenuous relationship. Some of their stuff is excellent; some complete crap, but I've been unable to either confirm or disprove those opinions. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
A fellow editor started a discussion not here but over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Professional critics. I invite you to join that discussion. (Perhaps it should have been held here, not sure). Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 00:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
What is the reliability of Daily Sabah ( dailysabah.com )?
Twitter Wants to Use Wikipedia to Help Determine Who Gets a Blue Checkmark
This could lead to some interesting WP:CIRCULAR situations, or it may turn out mostly ok. Anyway, for RS-interested editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
an account may be verified if the subject has a Wikipedia page about them with three “external references to distinct, unaffiliated sources.”It's described as basically adopting a version of WP:N. Sunrise ( talk) 03:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Despite its popularity among professionals, I've noticed that Medscape is, as of now, still not listed on
WP:RSPSOURCES. Its historical precedent,
eMedicine, was only briefly mentioned in
WP:MEDRS as usually acceptable source for uncontroversial information
. Also, a
previous discussion was started here 11 years ago, but didn't gain enough traction to build consensus. To the best of my knowledge, drugs and diseases articles on Medscape are peer-reviewed and compatible with
WP:MEDPRI. Even though an RfC would be more appropriate to establish this sort of recognition for the source, I said I'd first collect some thoughts on its reliability.
Assem Khidhr (
talk) 16:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.Assem Khidhr ( talk) 18:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
collection of thoughtsfrom interested users. It certainly isn't compulsory. What I'm getting from the rest of the points is subjective perceived inherent limitations of WP:RSPSOURCES in particular and policy documentation in general. I don't think such view reflects consensus in the project, especially when the current list is already not anywhere near binary and when matters of contextualization and exahustiveness are showcased in the lede and frequently cited in relevant discussions. IMHO, this sort of preventionist deletionism might hinder the evolution of the encyclopedia. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 21:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Assem Khidhr ( talk) 03:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard.
you're not supposed to start RFCs to add anything to that list unless there have already been multiple significant disputes at RSN., even though no conditions were given to start an RfC.
two or three editors [according to whether or not the source is in the title] commenting on the source's reliability. #3 above, for example, would definitely amount to this. In short, the wording you cited is more of a personal reflection on policy than an accurate paraphrase. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 14:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a general question but because it came up repeatedly during a heated debate on the Talk page of this article: [In_Praise_of_Blood] I will use that example to illustrate my question. I hope that discussing this topic here will lead to a general guideline about this apparently difficult to grasp concept and perhaps even help towards resolving the discussion I'm highlighting. In the example two book reviews are used as major reliable sources to inform the article: [47] and [48]. However, the book's subject falls outside the expertise of the reviewers and of the journal editors who published the reviews so they should be read with caution. These authors are journalists who are notable for their work on specific health crises in Africa; Helen C. Epstein for HIV/AIDS [Helen_Epstein_(HIV/AIDS_journalist)] and Laurie Garrett for Ebola [Laurie Garrett] whereas the book is about genocide and war crimes in Rwanda. Their reviews were subsequently criticized [49], [50]. Because the book is controversial, reliability matters even more in my opinion. I would compare it with the hypothetical situation of journalists without any relevant competence in the field of medicine reviewing a contested book about immunology in a journal like Genocide Studies and Prevention [51]. To demonstrate the confusion among editors and even administrators I will use a diff about quoting an expert scholar commenting on a reviewer "not having great credentials as a Rwanda expert" [52] which was rejected as an offending remark [53]. Saflieni ( talk) 11:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I am about to remove this as a reference from Clock rate because it is obviously wrong. Nobody has ever clocked a processor at 10Ghz or over, even with liquid nitrogen cooling. [54]
What do we do when a file is based upon an unreliable source? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
Factual accuracy}}
and reported the issue to
Our World In Data. Hopefully Our World in Data will correct the chart, and we can re-insert the new version, since the article really ought to have a chart, but missing information is better than wrong information.
Vahurzpu (
talk) 06:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Hello everyone, could I get a weigh-in on the reliability of this source: https://leadstories.com
Hope to hear your input! starship .paint ( talk) 09:02, 7 December 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.
With the Gypsy Taub article, I am trying to assert that small, local news sources like SFist and Berkeleyside are just as WP:RS as The New York Times. All three are ongoing businesses that can be sued for libel and such. All three are highly motivated to be reliable. In particular, I have a contentious editor who is owning the GT article who is saying that Berkeleyside is a blog because it won an award as a blog and so we cannot refer to it by the more general term "website" in the SFist article and has reverted me there. The contentious editor refuses to discuss the matter on the talk pages and is owning these articles. The relevant stories are https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/12/20/public-nudity-activist-from-berkeley-charged-with-attempted-abduction-stalking-of-teenage-boy and https://sfist.com/2020/06/19/noted-bay-area-activist-gypsy-taub-in-jail-for-six-months-on/ The sfist.com story was in the GT article for a long time but now the contentious editor has removed it and is reverting my attempts to restore it, threatening me with WP:3RR and such. We are having a related discussion over at WT:BLP. Please help.-- Sa57arc ( talk) 20:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
In 2019, on the article Red flag traffic laws, I tagged the section "Red flag laws in the United States" as a hoax because it made claims which seem quite doubtful in my opinion. The tag was later removed by another editor who claimed that the citations (citing books) did indeed verify the contents of the section. I am not sure if this is the case, so I would like to request here that a neutral party verify the claims, if possible. The citations are here and here. Please be warned that these are Google links.
The claim has existed since the article's creation: Diff
Thank you.
DesertPipeline ( talk) 07:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Per CVC Section 24604, whenever the load upon any vehicle extends, or whenever any integral part of any vehicle projects, to the rear four feet or more beyond the rear of the vehicle, as measured from the taillamps, there shall be displayed at the extreme end of the load or projecting part of the vehicle: a single solid red or fluorescent orange flag or cloth not less than 18 inches square if the projecting load is two feet wide or less. Two warning flags or cloths are required if the projecting load is wider than two feet. Flags or cloths shall be located to indicate maximum width of loads that extend beyond the sides or rear of the vehicle(emphasis mine). jp× g 19:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
"Iran Chamber Society" ( http://www.iranchamber.com/) is a user-generated content blog-style site with a number of pages relating to Iranian culture and history managed by anonymous individual(s) calling themselves the Iran Chamber Society. Many of the pages within are unattributed like this or this (this particular page is frequently used on Wikipedia, and lacks any attribution, references, etc.). Those pages that actually have attribution simply include a name and appear to been copy-pasted from existing works such as this one which copies from a book called The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East by Charles Horne. However, I've only seen the unattributed, unreferenced pages like this one get used on Wikipedia articles like this.
The "About Us" page ( http://www.iranchamber.com/about_us/about_us.php) is very revealing, as they specifically ask for user contributions.
Since our resources are limited we need your support, feedback and advice not only to maintain the content of this site on the net but also to help it grow. All suggestions and corrections are deeply appreciated and will go under the thoughtful consideration. Our achievement up to now is relied on the generosity and commitment of our contributors. Herewith, Iran Chamber Society sincerely invites all Iranian and non-Iranian scholars and researchers to become contributing members and publish their articles and research papers on this platform and share them with the rest of the world.
From looking through most of the website, the articles appear to be either non-attributed user contribution, copy-pasted from someone else's published work, or in several cases an attributed user contribution.
For reference, the user-generated content section of WP:RS states: "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, video and image hosting services, most wikis, and other collaboratively created websites."
Thank you. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 00:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I would like to get opinion from the Admins about Academic Source, printed in 1968 in Macedonia. The book deals with a specific matter the Drama Uprising (not general World War II view). Since it is specific event there are not many academic sources outhere (only 3-4 Academic supported publications). One user is discrediting this source as beeing irrelevant dated from Communistic Era. Macedonia (therefore Yugoslavia), did their huge reforms and changes in early 60es and this book is printed in 1968, supported by the State Institute of National History. The user wants to misinterpret that Yugoslavia was under USSR pressure at that time (which is totally untrue) and therefore the discrediting the source. All the economical, political and social analyses and books are there to support that theory. So, can anyone assisst me what should I do when a user is constantly discrediting my Academic source and labeling it as unrelevant? Thanks. -- Forbidden History ( talk) 11:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for the allcaps, but that's how they style themselves. Are they reliable? One of their articles is being used to support the following statement on Chad Wolf. I don't subscribe to WaPo so can't verify whether it alone would be sufficient. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 16:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
References
The Independent, last revisited
1.5 years ago, but the last large discussion being 2013, its RSP entry currently reads: The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date.
What is the 2020 (coming into 2021) consensus on this source? Is it generally reliable, are there topics in which it is iffy, does it have any notable biases, is it generally reliable for controversial claims about BLPs / entities?
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 13:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I think since moving online the Independent has largely devolved in clickbait reporting targeted at certain social groups. It is probably at this stage the left wing equivalent of the Daily Mail.
A several sentence opinion blog post that adds no value except a writer calling for a deportation. It's not a published news article on The Telegraph, but the writer's personal opinion blog blurb. For example, it is being used as a source on Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran for this sentence: "The most notable of such events was the Iranian Embassy siege in London, in which six armed Khuzestani Arab insurgents took the Iranian Embassy's staff as hostages,". It stands in stark juxtaposition to the other source cited, a published book on the embassy siege and British SAS operation.
Should an angry-sounding short blog post that reads like certain political Twitter tweets be treated as a reliable source? Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 01:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Can an RS-guru please take a look at Anne Carlini for vetting as a reliable source? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if this belongs here or on the talk page. This New York Times article article mentions many items that are of interest to us. For example:
Maine Business Daily is part of a fast-growing network of nearly 1,300 websites that aim to fill a void left by vanishing local newspapers across the country. Yet the network, now in all 50 states, is built not on traditional journalism but on propaganda ordered up by dozens of conservative think tanks, political operatives, corporate executives and public-relations professionals, a Times investigation found.
ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 22:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
Would editors mind having a look at the designation of The Canary as 'generally unreliable' after the most recent discussion in April 2020? [63] The summary says "Most editors criticize the accuracy of The Canary". I counted 6 editors voting for GU and 4 editors for GR with appropriate attribution. As far as I can tell the editors who considered Canary as GU didn’t raise any significant specific examples of how it was unreliable. My feeling is that the GU tag does not adequately represent the views of the editors who participated in the discussion. I would suggest 'no consensus' would be a closer summary. What do other editors think? Burrobert ( talk) 16:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)headlines are not a reliable sourcefrom any source regardless of reliability. Bad headline writing? yes; reason against being a RS? no. El komodos drago ( talk to me) 11:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I participated and said attribute and use with caution. The discussion got a bit mixed I thought, with evolve and squawkbox, 2 other left leaning sites. I think generally unreliable is not really an accurate reflection of the convo. No con would be better, maybe rerun it by itself? Selfstudier ( talk) 16:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I read the first three examples posted by GPinkerton, and I frankly don't see how they support the "generally unreliable" label. The first example is a criticism of The Canary's criticism of Israel. The second is a Canary article criticizing a BBC journalist for agreeing to speak at a Tory conference fringe event. This article was corrected after publication (to make clear that it was a fringe event), which is exactly what we want to see reliable sources doing. The third example is an opinion piece in the New Statesman that criticizes The Canary's criticism of the BBC journalist. The author in the New Statesman claims The Canary's criticism was sexist (the only ground given by the author for this accusation is that the BBC journalist is a woman - make of that what you will). This looks like completely normal back-and-forth between publications with different political leanings: a publication that supports Israel criticizes a publication that supports the Palestinians, a publication that opposes Corbyn criticizes a publication that supports Corbyn, etc.
A determination of "generally unreliable" has to be based on stronger stuff than that. There has to be actual unreliability, not just differences of political opinion with other magazines. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The campaign began in March 2019, and was backed by Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman.The website for "Stop Funding Fake News" gives no information about who is actually behind it, so the only people I'm aware of that are involved in it are Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman. Both of them are known for opposing Corbyn and criticizing Labour for alleged antisemitism. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 11:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Stop Funding Fake News has been a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate. Company Number: 11633127. Registered Address: Langley House, Park Road, East Finchley, London, United Kingdom, N2 8EY. That Centre names people involved online here: https://www.counterhate.co.uk/our-people The campaign primarily targets right-wing websites as well as a couple of alt-left ones so is certainly not primarily anti-Corbyn. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be hard to demonstrate that it's any more unreliable than, say, the Express: RSP says
The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail. It is considered generally unreliable.I agree it is in the same category. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
lunatic fringeof British politics. It appears to represent a position similar to Jeremy Corbyn, who was, until recently, the leader of the second largest political party in the UK. In any case, the objections to The Canary appear to be almost entirely political, and I strongly object to it being labeled "generally unreliable". - Thucydides411 ( talk) 11:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
there have to be actual examples of unreliability, which nobody here has yet provided. There have been examples provided here, but at any rate here are some: as well as the misleading story about Laura Keunssberg, [68] and conspiracy theories about Portland Communications, [69] it published articles by Max Blumenthal (editor of Grayzone, a deprecated source) on a Nicaraguan-based journalist that were described by the Committee to Protect Journalists as a “targeted online harassment campaign” after which the journalist was detained, interrogated and deported, leading to the National Union of Journalists protesting against The Canary's editor. [70] [71] [72] [73]; as well as Grayzone it has contributors who write for outlets like MintPress and American Herald Tribune; [74] it published deceptive claims about Labour Party funding that promote antisemitic conspiracy theories; [75] it publishes conspiracy theories about Syrian chemical warfare; [76] one of its regular contributors (best known for his antisemitic tweets [77]) was recruited to write for a fake news site set up by the Russian government; [78] it published a Daily Mail style misleading story about story about a junior doctor's suicide; [79] it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS; [80] it published Russian government sponsored fake news about the Salisbury chemical attack; [81] [82] before setting upt the Canary its editor promoted the Zeitgeist conspiracy theory movement [83] and worked with Davide Icke on his People's Voice; [84]and I think it published Pizzagate style fake news about Seth Rich's murder and later deleted the article without correction. [85] [86] While comments above suggest that it is being criticied because it is anti-Corbyn, it has been criticised by several Corbyn supporters such as Corbyn biographer Richard Seymour, [87] or Owen Jones [88] (Note: I appreciate that not all my sources here are RSs by WP article standards, but should give enough information for un-involved editors to come to a view.) BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
the misleading story about Laura Keunssberg", we're talking about an extremely minor inaccuracy (she was invited to speak at a fringe event at a Tory conference, instead of the main conference itself), and The Canary corrected it. So when you claim that The Canary published other false claims, without further elaboration, I'm skeptical. Please explain a) exactly what The Canary claimed, b) how those claims were false and c) how The Canary failed to retract or correct those claims. The problem is that your list does not explain any of this. Did the Canary make false claims about the Nicaraguan journalist? What false claims? When you write that,
it published deceptive claims about Labour Party funding that promote antisemitic conspiracy theories, what deceptive claims did it make, and what antisemitic conspiracy theories did they serve? Your source for this is a Medium blog post that admits that The Canary's claim is true - it just argues that its antisemitic to point out that a pro-Israeli lobbyist gave a large donation to a politician (judge that argument how you will, but it's irrelevant at WP:RSN, which is concerned with accuracy). Be specific. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 17:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
As I've been pinged here. Short of time, so I'll just reiterate my opinion that The Canary is generally unreliable. Our own article is a good place to start with assessing this. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 16:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
IMPRESS upheld two of the 58 complaints they received during 2017/18 about The Canary's news reporting.
The Canary was given an overall pass rating and a pass on eight out of nine factors (it failed on 'handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly') by NewsGuard, an organisation which evaluates news outlets for trustworthiness.
A 2018 study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism described The Canary as "a left-wing partisan site" and an example of "alternative and partisan brands" which have "a political or ideological agenda and their user base tends to passionately share these views". Its trust rating was given as 4.69 where 10 is fully trusted, making it more trusted than the Daily Mail, Buzzfeed News and The Sun, but less than The Daily Mirror, the regional press or any broadsheet newspaper, although its trust level among its own users was at 6.65 (a similar level to The Independent, The Daily Telegraph and the regional press).
You keep asserting a lack of evidence of general unreliability when it has been repeatedly presented to you.I've asked for specific false claims that The Canary has made and failed to correct/retract. Anyone is free to look at the above thread and verify that nobody has yet provided a clear case of that sort of behavior.
earlier on about SFFN/CCDH, you made a series of demonstrably false statements about its leadershipWhat false statements? You're staking your claim that The Canary is unreliable on the say-so of Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), without giving any reason why we should treat CCDH as credible. It looks like a small political group aimed at lobbying American tech firms (hence the use of the American spelling "Center" by a British organization) and advertisers to dump certain outlets. Why should Wikipedia trust CCDH's judgment? - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I've asked for specific false claims that The Canary has made and failed to correct/retract. Anyone is free to look at the above thread and verify that nobody has yet provided a clear case of that sort of behavior.You've had the examples from myself, from BobFromBrockley and others. No other potential reliable source used on Wikipedia has claims against them of the nature that the Canary has.
What false statements?I'll list them: "The website for "Stop Funding Fake News" gives no information about who is actually behind it" This was false. "According to our own Wiki article about the campaign, it's led by Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman..." This was false. In addition you made a number of assertions about the organisation without providing a shred of evidence to support your claims: "Stop Funding Fake News and Center for Countering Digital Hate are engaged in political advocacy." Evidence please "Stop Funding Fake News is a political organization, which took a clear stance against Corbyn." Evidence please Also you said "Stop Funding Fake News actually gave concrete examples of The Canary publishing fake news." This was posted to you as well.
You're staking your claim that The Canary is unreliable on the say-so of Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), without giving any reason why we should treat CCDH as credible.I'm not staking my claim on what the CCDH/SFFN at all, my position towards The Canary is based on its activities which have already been stated by others. By mentioning the CCDH, I'm simply providing a prominent organisation that takes a similar attitude to the reliability of the Canary. In regards to the credibility of the CCDH, I've given information about them multiple times in discussions which you have been privy to. However for the benefit of those reading: The CCDH is supported Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson. As well as this, the CEO of the Center, Imran Ahmed sits on the steering committee of the Commission for Countering Extremism (source: here). The CCDH is not some fringe organisation but a prominent organisation that has a role in advising the British government. To give a bit of information of the support the British government has for the CCDH, I quote from Steering Committee website (previously cited): "CCDH have run a number of innovative campaigns, the most recent being the #DontSpreadtheVirus campaign, endorsed by the government, which aims to counter misinformation around the coronavirus." Alssa1 ( talk) 11:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
"The website for "Stop Funding Fake News" gives no information about who is actually behind it" This was false.If you go to their website and click on "Our Story", there is nothing about who "we" are. I can't find a single name anywhere on their website of who runs the campaign. The only thing they say is,
From 4th May 2020, Stop Funding Fake News has been a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate.That implies that a year after they were founded, they somehow became connected to the " Center for Countering Digital Hate". Who at the CCDH runs SSFN? Or is SSFN still run by the people who founded it (whoever they are)?
"According to our own Wiki article about the campaign, it's led by Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman..." This was false.Literally the first sentence of the body of the Wikipedia article on Stop Funding Fake News reads,
The campaign began in March 2019, and was backed by Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman.Those are the only two people I've seen be associated by any publication with SSFN. Maybe there are other people involved with SSFN, but it's not immediately apparent, either from their website or the Wikipedia article.
"Stop Funding Fake News and Center for Countering Digital Hate are engaged in political advocacy." Evidence pleaseThe only people that I've seen connected with SSFN, Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman, have campaigned against Corbyn and alleged antisemitism within the Labour Party.
The CCDH is supported Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson.
The CCDH is not some fringe organisation but a prominent organisation that has a role in advising the British government.Those facts doesn't help to convince me that the organization is anything other than political. You've just written that CCDH is supported by a Tory government and prominent figures in the anti-Corbyn wing of the Labour Party. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The CCDH is supported Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson. They're both establishment figures though. How surprising is it that they would oppose an anti-establishment left-wing publication? G-13114 ( talk) 19:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
They're both establishment figures though. How surprising is it that they would oppose an anti-establishment left-wing publication?I wondered how long it would take before someone made the supposed 'anti-establishment' argument... Tell me, what's the difference between the 'anti-establishment' and fringe? Alssa1 ( talk) 19:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
pieces littered with falsehoods that reinforce the opposition’s narrative promoting regime. That's a smear if it isn't true. However, Blumenthal presents much evidence demonstrating that Goette-Luciak indeed promoted MRS's narrative.
With 200 political prisoners and [new] murders every day. But according to Blumenthal, most murder victims were Ortega supporters. He reported on violence committed by Ortega's police forces but not on violence committed by MRS supporters. Blumenthal writes:
In a separate incident this June, Goette-Luciak appeared momentarily in a highly disturbing video filmed by 100% Noticias. He could be seen taking photos of a mob of opposition thugs in the act of kidnapping and beating an ageing Sandinista member they had found squatting on a local oligarch’s abandoned property. Oddly, Goette-Luciak published no photos of the incident and did not report on it.Blumenthal also links to photos showing Goette-Luciak speaking to MRS leaders.
I must be extremely clear: in the six months we lived and worked together in Nicaragua we were both very open about our plan to use our friendships with Nicaraguan opposition figures to push for the end of the Sandinista government and create careers for ourselves as journalists or consultants in the process.
Comment I just want to make it clear that although I said "use with caution", by that I did not mean that I thought Canary to be unreliable, merely that they might overegg the pudding on occasion, nothing more. For what it is worth, my impression is that the majority of attacks on Canary are politically motivated. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I went through all the Canary articles that have been mentioned by editors in the discussion. I found three articles where an identified error had been made by The Canary. They were the Laura K and fracking stories that went to IMPRESS and the story that was described as "it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS". The Canary acknowledged the error in the first 2 cases and took appropriate action. It appears that The Canary itself identified the third error and made the correction which related to The Canary's description of a pilgrimage as a march. The other stories involve innuendo, opinion, guilt by association and other diversions that don't impact on reliability. The story titled "The Canary Deleted A False Viral Story About The Sun's Coverage Of The Manchester Attack" was discussed by Press Gazette which stated: "The Canary story remains live on its website with an update at the foot of the article that reads: "The Sun contacted The Canary to request that we update the piece to reflect that The Sun went to print prior to the concert bombing. The paper issued an updated front page subsequently. We’re happy to do so" ". Burrobert ( talk) 11:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
the anti-Corbyn faction of the Labour Partyconsists of basically everyone in the Labour Party minus whoever lost their job with the change in leadership and Corbyn himself. GPinkerton ( talk) 20:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
some of the people invovled are also connected to Labour Party organisations, which is not really shocking) has nothing to do with whether or not The Canary is reliable. If anything, what you've illustrated above is that The Canary's articles are generally factually sound, and that The Canary has a generally left-Labour point of view. WP:RS policy doesn't prohibit the use of left-Labour sources (just as it doesn't prohibit the use of right-Labour sources). It's concerned with accuracy, which appears to be fulfilled here. On political issues, we should, of course, keep in mind the political leanings of the sources and present a range of views. But generally unreliable means that a source publishes false or fabricated information, not that it tends to lean left or right. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content." I'm not arguing for deprecation, but simply that the clickbait model, lack of editorial oversight, Daily Mail style sensationalism, conspiracy theories, poor grasp of facts and frequent inacccuracies leaves it insufficently reliable for non-exceptional use. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
What happens now? Burrobert ( talk) 10:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
The Canary and the website of the Israel-critical organisation, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, presented the research positively but reported it selectively in order to create the false impression that the finding was that only those on the political right were likely to be a problem for British Jews (see JFJFP, 2017, Micner, 2017). This was in effect a denial of racism.
This is not and was not intended to be an RfC and so cannot be closed. I do not think that any of us want an on going debate over a small online news outlet stuck for the rest of eternity on the top of RS/N so if people wouldn't mind, I propose that we wait for it to get archived, have a discussion on WT:RSP and if it is still unclear or if other people think they have something important to add, then we can go back and have an RfC. I think we are seriously over egging this, we've probably devoted fewer words to the RfC on the Mail on Sunday then we have devoted to a news site with maybe a thousanth of the readership. Look, I'll happily discuss this until the cows come home but I think that is a disservice to people who want to finish this up and get on to discussing useful things. ~ El D. ( talk to me) 14:54, 16 December 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 315 | ← | Archive 319 | Archive 320 | Archive 321 | Archive 322 | Archive 323 | → | Archive 325 |
Hello, this is my first time posting on this particular page. I was wondering whether or not this source was considered generally reliable. I did not find many discussions about it in the archives, none of which went in-depth about its reliability. From what research I have done it appears to be a tabloid affiliated with News Corp, whose New York Post is considered generally unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It also appears to have a conservative slant, but that of course doesn't make a source unreliable. There also appears to be some regional difference in the use of the word "tabloid" that I, as an American, may just not fully understand.
For context, I have raised my concerns about the source at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Fimmano and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stella Rigon. My arguments were generally more concerned with the significance of the coverage for the former, but I still wanted additional input on the use of this source generally. I appreciate the input! Jay eyem ( talk) 16:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
not related to reliability of source
|
---|
|
70% of Australia's mainstream media, a field which would also include a strong state-owned media presence. Is there a source supporting the 70% figure? - Ryk72 talk 06:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Does this Fox News article, which states "Her goals include outlawing abortion, protecting gun rights and fighting "big tech censorship" of conservative viewpoints.", support the statement "Greene supports criminalizing abortion." for the Marjorie Taylor Greene article? Fox News is yellow for politics, and Greene is a living person, but if Fox is simply repeating what Greene told them, it's probably accurate, right? feminist (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The "Circumcision Information and Resource Page" (cirp.org) has a "reference library" (cirp.org/library/) which is linked 750 times from the English wikipedia. [5] It hosts third-party publications such as book extracts and journal articles on the topic of circumcision.
Some issues:
Thought on what to do about this? An entry in WP:RSP and/or blacklisting? Whatever, it seems like some cleanup is needed. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
ImTheIP. WP:MEDRS sources generally need to be secondary and recent. This is getting off-topic but yes, the term "ridged band" seems to have been taken up by John Taylor in the 1990s and became part of the circumcision activist lore (another vital anatomical structure that circumcision destroys!). Indeed on the front page of cirp.org viewers are encouraged to visit the "Ridged Band" web site. Yet, if we get up-to-date, the term seems to have no lasting mainstream currency and the only recent WP:MEDRS secondary independent source I can find (Cox et al. 2015. PMID 26185672) had this to say:
The “ridged band” seems to be a name used for the concertinaed distal skin that becomes stretched for retraction over the glans. We consider that such a conformation is merely a matter of individual idiosyncrasy and not a universal feature. Furthermore, different illustrations of the so-called “ridged band” do not appear to show the same structure ...
So presenting it as a fact in Wikipedia, even identifying it (as something different even from the sources) on the opening image caption of our Foreskin article (before I zapped it) was, to put it mildly, problematic. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@ ImTheIP: are you really suggesting we use "Bodily Integrity and the Politics of Circumcision” or did you not do any due diligence on those sources? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing in the WP:MEDRS guidelines that prohibits using a source published in 1959. And as demonstrated, finding more recent sources for the statement in question was trivial. It took me 15 minutes but I'm sure an expert could have gotten it done even quicker. Here are three more sources that reference the ridged band:
The three pro-circumcision authors Alexbrn cites, Guy Cox, Brian J. Morris, and John N. Krieger, who denies its existence, appears to be in the minority. Regardless, the correct course of action is to "upgrade" links to cirp.org to links to publishers' websites. Perhaps some would instead prefer to delete every statement sourced to cirp.org. I strenuously object. ImTheIP ( talk) 18:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
There has been disagreement over whether and how to use
this source on
Andy Ngo, as well as, to a lesser extent,
this and
this. The basic dispute has been over whether those fall under "internet culture", what internet culture means in an era where everything is online, and so on; but I wanted to ask a more general question of whether the
WP:RS/P statement that The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture
is meant to be exclusive or whether it merely means they are particularly reliable for internet culture but still reliable in general and, if the latter is the case, whether the RSP entry should be edited to indicate that they are generally reliable. --
Aquillion (
talk) 21:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I've seen ongoing discussions about using Crunchbase as a source, because it is a popular industry investor site for funding info. But none of the archived discussions distinguish between Crunchbase's user generated content, particularly their company databases and funding news collections, and their independent news reporting group, Crunchbase News.[ [11]] I'd like to add a new entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for Crunchbase News, just below Crunchbase, to distinguish the two, and would like to generate a consensus before choosing a status. While I've found their news reporting to be reliable, it would be fine to even start with a no consensus, similar to how TechCrunch is treated. This would at least keep the news sources from being dismissed outright, if they are considered guilty by association with Crunchbase's deprecated status, which also seems to have impacted the AfD perception of TechCrunch, due to the similar names. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Could someone clarify the extent to which Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context
applies? Specifically, roughly how far back do "historically" and "old" mean?
FDW777 (
talk) 14:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
On the specific question of Titanic reporting, see [14]. Any number of newspapers besides the Daily Mail got it wrong at first. Mackensen (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I raised this briefly on the talk page, but it does not look like a determination has been made regarding the reliability of CNBC. More specifically, I'd like to cite an article covering cryptocurrency such as the following: Link
Related sources NBC and MSNBC have been determined to be reliable. David Gerard raised concerns because it is cryptocurrency coverage. There are currently community wide sanctions on all cryptocurrency-related sources under WP:GS/CRYPTO that were put in place in 2018. However, nearly three years later, cryptocurrency seems to be in a different place (less mania now and more institutional and regulatory buy-in). I can understand keeping these sanctions in place for a majority of smaller cryptocurrencies, but well known ones such as Bitcoin and Ethereum are receiving consistent coverage in perennial reliable sources such as Bloomberg [1], the NY Times [2] and Forbes [3].
So my question: is CNBC a reliable source? If so, can it be used as a reliable source for cryptocurrency articles? If not, why the distinction? Thanks. HocusPocus00 ( talk) 14:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
References
@ HocusPocus00: I just read the article from start to finish twice. There are still things in it that make no sense to me, like the "sharded blockchain" quote. Overall, the entire article seems like either summations of press release material, or quotations from various Etherium or cryptocoin evangelists. My main question or concern on the particular article is that the list of interviewees or mentions is:
I don't know that it's crossing into the realm of unreliable, but I definitely feel after reading the article as if "Tech Reporter for @CNBCi" (per his Twitter self-description) Ryan Browne didn't give the reader a full or well-balanced view of the subject? IHateAccounts ( talk) 23:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Is Ahval reliable? It is supporting the following statement on Antony Blinken:
Thanks, all, for any input. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 13:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
References
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 am not aware of any current citations for Fox News. However, there has never been an extensive discussion on this noticeboard that focused exclusively on Fox News. Fox News should be deprecated. Neel.arunabh ( talk) 17:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Is Tanks Encyclopedia a reliable reference? The "Powered by WordPress" means it's a blog with a domain name. They have authors such as Gareth Lynn Montes and Marisa Belhote who don't appear to have any degreee of expertise in the subject area. FDW777 ( talk) 19:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Republic TV is an Indian-news channel. It is at present the most popular news channel and website in India. It is my personal ideology, that it isn't politically reliable, but is reliable in all other cases. I think it deserves to be in this list.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 09:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the channel is not politically 100% reliable, but it is not also 100% unreliable. So it should be shown as 'Generally Unreliable' in political status. But for non-political reliability. It should come as 'Generally Reliable'.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 12:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the Sushant Singh Rajput point. But, that was close to politics as it aimed at the Maharashtra government. But the other news on entertainment, sports, biography's, non-political headlines etc.. are 99.9% reliable. So non-political should be presented (in my opinion) as 'Generally Reliable'. -- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 13:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Tayi Arajakate I would like to point out that they had produced fake news on the Karnataka Home Minister's comments, as it was political. I wouldn't mind the politically unreliable statement. But the non-political matter is the matter. The Sushant Singh Rajput case, was related to politics. Even otherwise it was just 1 issue. Rliable sources like The Guardian also have shown unreliability in some issues. But their other articles were fair.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 13:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The misinformation on the Covid-19 pandemic were on Republic Bharat TV, which is another channel, though they are the same brand. Also the rest are all either political, or about famous people in different field, who have a strong political career. For example- check out Arundathi Roy and also the fact that Rana Ayyub has been critical of the illegal encounters in Gujarat, which was ruled by BJP. Also see [26] on BBC doing fake news. Yet, they are considered to be politically reliable, as they generally are. That is by considering the general case. The same should go for Republic as they are generally reliablr for non-political matters.
I am asking the other editors about factors like entertainment, sports and such non-political events where Republic TV is reliable.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 17:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
This discussion leads us nowhere.Let me end it. Without any conflict, let's just state that Republic is 'Generally Unreliable'. Problem solved. Now the question is - how does that work.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 09:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I request more editors to join the discussion.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 17:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: More reviews please.
The result till now is 'Generally Unreliable'. -- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 06:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I have seen Republic Bharat through my TV and found that the news reporters are enthusiastic supporters of BJP and Hinduism. They criticise the Muslims for almost anything. So, I can say that Republic Bharat is a right-wing pro-BJP pro-Hindu anti-Muslim news channel. But I don't disgrace the reliability of the news channel in non-sociopolitical topics. So I can rate the sociopolitical portion generally unreliable and non-sociopolitical portion generally reliable. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I thank @Soumya-8974 for her review, even though it is about Republic Bharat and not Republic TV. Yet as Tayi Arajakate stated that they republish each other's work and have almost the same editorial staff, the point is valid. She and myself have shared the same opinion on the matter. I look forward to more views as the present situation is still- "Generally Unreliable" in both political and non-political NEWS. The non-political reliability margins are narrow, so a result can't deduced. More comments needed.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 16:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Soumya-8974:I apologize for my confusion with the name, but in the end our points are the same. Please continue editting.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 03:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@ -ink&fables: Thank you for giving your opinion. The result at present is unreliable, please continue editing. We need more opinions.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 10:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The present result is 'Generally Unreliable'. Need more comments.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 09:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
That being said I believe editors must be carefull when using News Channels as a source as they are more opinionated than the Print Media. Newspapers and Print Media should be given priority as a source. defcon5 ( talk) 17:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
How can you challenge a claim with articles from other unreliable sources like altnews ? Because Republic has exposed a lot of scams made by political parties in India.It is under attack by those parties to discredit republic TV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.242.25 ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
There is now a discussion on whether Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic should appear in the list of unrecognised states. Several users provides multiple examples of these entities being referenced as de facto states and unrecognised states in scholarly articles and this what is written in the book Unrecognized States and Secession in the 21st Century by Riegl and Bobos:
“ | However, it has become clear that de facto states are not simply ephemeral phenomena that will collapse on their own (Broers 2013); they have demonstrated their longevity. The four de facto states in the former Soviet space have all existed for more than two decades, as has Somaliland, while Northern Cyprus has been a de facto state for four decades. Moreover, new contested territories that could be described as de facto states have emerged, most notably the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic in Ukraine. These two newest additions to the universe of de facto states have started to create some of the trappings of statehood, although the extent of ‘indigenous roots’ is still debatable | ” |
I think this is quite sufficient to include them in the list, noting differing opinions. I would love to hear outside feedback on this, along with suggestions of reliable sources which can through additional light on this. Alaexis ¿question? 09:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Obviously, it's hard to lump books by a publisher as all reliable or all unreliable but I was wondering about the general quality of Arcadia Publishing. I see the opinions that the quality of books published through Arcadia is essentially the same as if they were self-published (2009) and "Arcadia Publishing" and "academic source" have a very tenuous relationship. Some of their stuff is excellent; some complete crap, but I've been unable to either confirm or disprove those opinions. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
A fellow editor started a discussion not here but over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Professional critics. I invite you to join that discussion. (Perhaps it should have been held here, not sure). Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 00:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
What is the reliability of Daily Sabah ( dailysabah.com )?
Twitter Wants to Use Wikipedia to Help Determine Who Gets a Blue Checkmark
This could lead to some interesting WP:CIRCULAR situations, or it may turn out mostly ok. Anyway, for RS-interested editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
an account may be verified if the subject has a Wikipedia page about them with three “external references to distinct, unaffiliated sources.”It's described as basically adopting a version of WP:N. Sunrise ( talk) 03:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Despite its popularity among professionals, I've noticed that Medscape is, as of now, still not listed on
WP:RSPSOURCES. Its historical precedent,
eMedicine, was only briefly mentioned in
WP:MEDRS as usually acceptable source for uncontroversial information
. Also, a
previous discussion was started here 11 years ago, but didn't gain enough traction to build consensus. To the best of my knowledge, drugs and diseases articles on Medscape are peer-reviewed and compatible with
WP:MEDPRI. Even though an RfC would be more appropriate to establish this sort of recognition for the source, I said I'd first collect some thoughts on its reliability.
Assem Khidhr (
talk) 16:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.Assem Khidhr ( talk) 18:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
collection of thoughtsfrom interested users. It certainly isn't compulsory. What I'm getting from the rest of the points is subjective perceived inherent limitations of WP:RSPSOURCES in particular and policy documentation in general. I don't think such view reflects consensus in the project, especially when the current list is already not anywhere near binary and when matters of contextualization and exahustiveness are showcased in the lede and frequently cited in relevant discussions. IMHO, this sort of preventionist deletionism might hinder the evolution of the encyclopedia. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 21:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Assem Khidhr ( talk) 03:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard.
you're not supposed to start RFCs to add anything to that list unless there have already been multiple significant disputes at RSN., even though no conditions were given to start an RfC.
two or three editors [according to whether or not the source is in the title] commenting on the source's reliability. #3 above, for example, would definitely amount to this. In short, the wording you cited is more of a personal reflection on policy than an accurate paraphrase. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 14:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a general question but because it came up repeatedly during a heated debate on the Talk page of this article: [In_Praise_of_Blood] I will use that example to illustrate my question. I hope that discussing this topic here will lead to a general guideline about this apparently difficult to grasp concept and perhaps even help towards resolving the discussion I'm highlighting. In the example two book reviews are used as major reliable sources to inform the article: [47] and [48]. However, the book's subject falls outside the expertise of the reviewers and of the journal editors who published the reviews so they should be read with caution. These authors are journalists who are notable for their work on specific health crises in Africa; Helen C. Epstein for HIV/AIDS [Helen_Epstein_(HIV/AIDS_journalist)] and Laurie Garrett for Ebola [Laurie Garrett] whereas the book is about genocide and war crimes in Rwanda. Their reviews were subsequently criticized [49], [50]. Because the book is controversial, reliability matters even more in my opinion. I would compare it with the hypothetical situation of journalists without any relevant competence in the field of medicine reviewing a contested book about immunology in a journal like Genocide Studies and Prevention [51]. To demonstrate the confusion among editors and even administrators I will use a diff about quoting an expert scholar commenting on a reviewer "not having great credentials as a Rwanda expert" [52] which was rejected as an offending remark [53]. Saflieni ( talk) 11:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I am about to remove this as a reference from Clock rate because it is obviously wrong. Nobody has ever clocked a processor at 10Ghz or over, even with liquid nitrogen cooling. [54]
What do we do when a file is based upon an unreliable source? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
Factual accuracy}}
and reported the issue to
Our World In Data. Hopefully Our World in Data will correct the chart, and we can re-insert the new version, since the article really ought to have a chart, but missing information is better than wrong information.
Vahurzpu (
talk) 06:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Hello everyone, could I get a weigh-in on the reliability of this source: https://leadstories.com
Hope to hear your input! starship .paint ( talk) 09:02, 7 December 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.
With the Gypsy Taub article, I am trying to assert that small, local news sources like SFist and Berkeleyside are just as WP:RS as The New York Times. All three are ongoing businesses that can be sued for libel and such. All three are highly motivated to be reliable. In particular, I have a contentious editor who is owning the GT article who is saying that Berkeleyside is a blog because it won an award as a blog and so we cannot refer to it by the more general term "website" in the SFist article and has reverted me there. The contentious editor refuses to discuss the matter on the talk pages and is owning these articles. The relevant stories are https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/12/20/public-nudity-activist-from-berkeley-charged-with-attempted-abduction-stalking-of-teenage-boy and https://sfist.com/2020/06/19/noted-bay-area-activist-gypsy-taub-in-jail-for-six-months-on/ The sfist.com story was in the GT article for a long time but now the contentious editor has removed it and is reverting my attempts to restore it, threatening me with WP:3RR and such. We are having a related discussion over at WT:BLP. Please help.-- Sa57arc ( talk) 20:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
In 2019, on the article Red flag traffic laws, I tagged the section "Red flag laws in the United States" as a hoax because it made claims which seem quite doubtful in my opinion. The tag was later removed by another editor who claimed that the citations (citing books) did indeed verify the contents of the section. I am not sure if this is the case, so I would like to request here that a neutral party verify the claims, if possible. The citations are here and here. Please be warned that these are Google links.
The claim has existed since the article's creation: Diff
Thank you.
DesertPipeline ( talk) 07:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Per CVC Section 24604, whenever the load upon any vehicle extends, or whenever any integral part of any vehicle projects, to the rear four feet or more beyond the rear of the vehicle, as measured from the taillamps, there shall be displayed at the extreme end of the load or projecting part of the vehicle: a single solid red or fluorescent orange flag or cloth not less than 18 inches square if the projecting load is two feet wide or less. Two warning flags or cloths are required if the projecting load is wider than two feet. Flags or cloths shall be located to indicate maximum width of loads that extend beyond the sides or rear of the vehicle(emphasis mine). jp× g 19:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
"Iran Chamber Society" ( http://www.iranchamber.com/) is a user-generated content blog-style site with a number of pages relating to Iranian culture and history managed by anonymous individual(s) calling themselves the Iran Chamber Society. Many of the pages within are unattributed like this or this (this particular page is frequently used on Wikipedia, and lacks any attribution, references, etc.). Those pages that actually have attribution simply include a name and appear to been copy-pasted from existing works such as this one which copies from a book called The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East by Charles Horne. However, I've only seen the unattributed, unreferenced pages like this one get used on Wikipedia articles like this.
The "About Us" page ( http://www.iranchamber.com/about_us/about_us.php) is very revealing, as they specifically ask for user contributions.
Since our resources are limited we need your support, feedback and advice not only to maintain the content of this site on the net but also to help it grow. All suggestions and corrections are deeply appreciated and will go under the thoughtful consideration. Our achievement up to now is relied on the generosity and commitment of our contributors. Herewith, Iran Chamber Society sincerely invites all Iranian and non-Iranian scholars and researchers to become contributing members and publish their articles and research papers on this platform and share them with the rest of the world.
From looking through most of the website, the articles appear to be either non-attributed user contribution, copy-pasted from someone else's published work, or in several cases an attributed user contribution.
For reference, the user-generated content section of WP:RS states: "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, video and image hosting services, most wikis, and other collaboratively created websites."
Thank you. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 00:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I would like to get opinion from the Admins about Academic Source, printed in 1968 in Macedonia. The book deals with a specific matter the Drama Uprising (not general World War II view). Since it is specific event there are not many academic sources outhere (only 3-4 Academic supported publications). One user is discrediting this source as beeing irrelevant dated from Communistic Era. Macedonia (therefore Yugoslavia), did their huge reforms and changes in early 60es and this book is printed in 1968, supported by the State Institute of National History. The user wants to misinterpret that Yugoslavia was under USSR pressure at that time (which is totally untrue) and therefore the discrediting the source. All the economical, political and social analyses and books are there to support that theory. So, can anyone assisst me what should I do when a user is constantly discrediting my Academic source and labeling it as unrelevant? Thanks. -- Forbidden History ( talk) 11:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for the allcaps, but that's how they style themselves. Are they reliable? One of their articles is being used to support the following statement on Chad Wolf. I don't subscribe to WaPo so can't verify whether it alone would be sufficient. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 16:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
References
The Independent, last revisited
1.5 years ago, but the last large discussion being 2013, its RSP entry currently reads: The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date.
What is the 2020 (coming into 2021) consensus on this source? Is it generally reliable, are there topics in which it is iffy, does it have any notable biases, is it generally reliable for controversial claims about BLPs / entities?
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 13:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I think since moving online the Independent has largely devolved in clickbait reporting targeted at certain social groups. It is probably at this stage the left wing equivalent of the Daily Mail.
A several sentence opinion blog post that adds no value except a writer calling for a deportation. It's not a published news article on The Telegraph, but the writer's personal opinion blog blurb. For example, it is being used as a source on Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran for this sentence: "The most notable of such events was the Iranian Embassy siege in London, in which six armed Khuzestani Arab insurgents took the Iranian Embassy's staff as hostages,". It stands in stark juxtaposition to the other source cited, a published book on the embassy siege and British SAS operation.
Should an angry-sounding short blog post that reads like certain political Twitter tweets be treated as a reliable source? Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 01:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Can an RS-guru please take a look at Anne Carlini for vetting as a reliable source? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if this belongs here or on the talk page. This New York Times article article mentions many items that are of interest to us. For example:
Maine Business Daily is part of a fast-growing network of nearly 1,300 websites that aim to fill a void left by vanishing local newspapers across the country. Yet the network, now in all 50 states, is built not on traditional journalism but on propaganda ordered up by dozens of conservative think tanks, political operatives, corporate executives and public-relations professionals, a Times investigation found.
ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 22:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
Would editors mind having a look at the designation of The Canary as 'generally unreliable' after the most recent discussion in April 2020? [63] The summary says "Most editors criticize the accuracy of The Canary". I counted 6 editors voting for GU and 4 editors for GR with appropriate attribution. As far as I can tell the editors who considered Canary as GU didn’t raise any significant specific examples of how it was unreliable. My feeling is that the GU tag does not adequately represent the views of the editors who participated in the discussion. I would suggest 'no consensus' would be a closer summary. What do other editors think? Burrobert ( talk) 16:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)headlines are not a reliable sourcefrom any source regardless of reliability. Bad headline writing? yes; reason against being a RS? no. El komodos drago ( talk to me) 11:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I participated and said attribute and use with caution. The discussion got a bit mixed I thought, with evolve and squawkbox, 2 other left leaning sites. I think generally unreliable is not really an accurate reflection of the convo. No con would be better, maybe rerun it by itself? Selfstudier ( talk) 16:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I read the first three examples posted by GPinkerton, and I frankly don't see how they support the "generally unreliable" label. The first example is a criticism of The Canary's criticism of Israel. The second is a Canary article criticizing a BBC journalist for agreeing to speak at a Tory conference fringe event. This article was corrected after publication (to make clear that it was a fringe event), which is exactly what we want to see reliable sources doing. The third example is an opinion piece in the New Statesman that criticizes The Canary's criticism of the BBC journalist. The author in the New Statesman claims The Canary's criticism was sexist (the only ground given by the author for this accusation is that the BBC journalist is a woman - make of that what you will). This looks like completely normal back-and-forth between publications with different political leanings: a publication that supports Israel criticizes a publication that supports the Palestinians, a publication that opposes Corbyn criticizes a publication that supports Corbyn, etc.
A determination of "generally unreliable" has to be based on stronger stuff than that. There has to be actual unreliability, not just differences of political opinion with other magazines. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The campaign began in March 2019, and was backed by Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman.The website for "Stop Funding Fake News" gives no information about who is actually behind it, so the only people I'm aware of that are involved in it are Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman. Both of them are known for opposing Corbyn and criticizing Labour for alleged antisemitism. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 11:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Stop Funding Fake News has been a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate. Company Number: 11633127. Registered Address: Langley House, Park Road, East Finchley, London, United Kingdom, N2 8EY. That Centre names people involved online here: https://www.counterhate.co.uk/our-people The campaign primarily targets right-wing websites as well as a couple of alt-left ones so is certainly not primarily anti-Corbyn. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be hard to demonstrate that it's any more unreliable than, say, the Express: RSP says
The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail. It is considered generally unreliable.I agree it is in the same category. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
lunatic fringeof British politics. It appears to represent a position similar to Jeremy Corbyn, who was, until recently, the leader of the second largest political party in the UK. In any case, the objections to The Canary appear to be almost entirely political, and I strongly object to it being labeled "generally unreliable". - Thucydides411 ( talk) 11:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
there have to be actual examples of unreliability, which nobody here has yet provided. There have been examples provided here, but at any rate here are some: as well as the misleading story about Laura Keunssberg, [68] and conspiracy theories about Portland Communications, [69] it published articles by Max Blumenthal (editor of Grayzone, a deprecated source) on a Nicaraguan-based journalist that were described by the Committee to Protect Journalists as a “targeted online harassment campaign” after which the journalist was detained, interrogated and deported, leading to the National Union of Journalists protesting against The Canary's editor. [70] [71] [72] [73]; as well as Grayzone it has contributors who write for outlets like MintPress and American Herald Tribune; [74] it published deceptive claims about Labour Party funding that promote antisemitic conspiracy theories; [75] it publishes conspiracy theories about Syrian chemical warfare; [76] one of its regular contributors (best known for his antisemitic tweets [77]) was recruited to write for a fake news site set up by the Russian government; [78] it published a Daily Mail style misleading story about story about a junior doctor's suicide; [79] it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS; [80] it published Russian government sponsored fake news about the Salisbury chemical attack; [81] [82] before setting upt the Canary its editor promoted the Zeitgeist conspiracy theory movement [83] and worked with Davide Icke on his People's Voice; [84]and I think it published Pizzagate style fake news about Seth Rich's murder and later deleted the article without correction. [85] [86] While comments above suggest that it is being criticied because it is anti-Corbyn, it has been criticised by several Corbyn supporters such as Corbyn biographer Richard Seymour, [87] or Owen Jones [88] (Note: I appreciate that not all my sources here are RSs by WP article standards, but should give enough information for un-involved editors to come to a view.) BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
the misleading story about Laura Keunssberg", we're talking about an extremely minor inaccuracy (she was invited to speak at a fringe event at a Tory conference, instead of the main conference itself), and The Canary corrected it. So when you claim that The Canary published other false claims, without further elaboration, I'm skeptical. Please explain a) exactly what The Canary claimed, b) how those claims were false and c) how The Canary failed to retract or correct those claims. The problem is that your list does not explain any of this. Did the Canary make false claims about the Nicaraguan journalist? What false claims? When you write that,
it published deceptive claims about Labour Party funding that promote antisemitic conspiracy theories, what deceptive claims did it make, and what antisemitic conspiracy theories did they serve? Your source for this is a Medium blog post that admits that The Canary's claim is true - it just argues that its antisemitic to point out that a pro-Israeli lobbyist gave a large donation to a politician (judge that argument how you will, but it's irrelevant at WP:RSN, which is concerned with accuracy). Be specific. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 17:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
As I've been pinged here. Short of time, so I'll just reiterate my opinion that The Canary is generally unreliable. Our own article is a good place to start with assessing this. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 16:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
IMPRESS upheld two of the 58 complaints they received during 2017/18 about The Canary's news reporting.
The Canary was given an overall pass rating and a pass on eight out of nine factors (it failed on 'handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly') by NewsGuard, an organisation which evaluates news outlets for trustworthiness.
A 2018 study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism described The Canary as "a left-wing partisan site" and an example of "alternative and partisan brands" which have "a political or ideological agenda and their user base tends to passionately share these views". Its trust rating was given as 4.69 where 10 is fully trusted, making it more trusted than the Daily Mail, Buzzfeed News and The Sun, but less than The Daily Mirror, the regional press or any broadsheet newspaper, although its trust level among its own users was at 6.65 (a similar level to The Independent, The Daily Telegraph and the regional press).
You keep asserting a lack of evidence of general unreliability when it has been repeatedly presented to you.I've asked for specific false claims that The Canary has made and failed to correct/retract. Anyone is free to look at the above thread and verify that nobody has yet provided a clear case of that sort of behavior.
earlier on about SFFN/CCDH, you made a series of demonstrably false statements about its leadershipWhat false statements? You're staking your claim that The Canary is unreliable on the say-so of Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), without giving any reason why we should treat CCDH as credible. It looks like a small political group aimed at lobbying American tech firms (hence the use of the American spelling "Center" by a British organization) and advertisers to dump certain outlets. Why should Wikipedia trust CCDH's judgment? - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I've asked for specific false claims that The Canary has made and failed to correct/retract. Anyone is free to look at the above thread and verify that nobody has yet provided a clear case of that sort of behavior.You've had the examples from myself, from BobFromBrockley and others. No other potential reliable source used on Wikipedia has claims against them of the nature that the Canary has.
What false statements?I'll list them: "The website for "Stop Funding Fake News" gives no information about who is actually behind it" This was false. "According to our own Wiki article about the campaign, it's led by Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman..." This was false. In addition you made a number of assertions about the organisation without providing a shred of evidence to support your claims: "Stop Funding Fake News and Center for Countering Digital Hate are engaged in political advocacy." Evidence please "Stop Funding Fake News is a political organization, which took a clear stance against Corbyn." Evidence please Also you said "Stop Funding Fake News actually gave concrete examples of The Canary publishing fake news." This was posted to you as well.
You're staking your claim that The Canary is unreliable on the say-so of Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), without giving any reason why we should treat CCDH as credible.I'm not staking my claim on what the CCDH/SFFN at all, my position towards The Canary is based on its activities which have already been stated by others. By mentioning the CCDH, I'm simply providing a prominent organisation that takes a similar attitude to the reliability of the Canary. In regards to the credibility of the CCDH, I've given information about them multiple times in discussions which you have been privy to. However for the benefit of those reading: The CCDH is supported Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson. As well as this, the CEO of the Center, Imran Ahmed sits on the steering committee of the Commission for Countering Extremism (source: here). The CCDH is not some fringe organisation but a prominent organisation that has a role in advising the British government. To give a bit of information of the support the British government has for the CCDH, I quote from Steering Committee website (previously cited): "CCDH have run a number of innovative campaigns, the most recent being the #DontSpreadtheVirus campaign, endorsed by the government, which aims to counter misinformation around the coronavirus." Alssa1 ( talk) 11:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
"The website for "Stop Funding Fake News" gives no information about who is actually behind it" This was false.If you go to their website and click on "Our Story", there is nothing about who "we" are. I can't find a single name anywhere on their website of who runs the campaign. The only thing they say is,
From 4th May 2020, Stop Funding Fake News has been a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate.That implies that a year after they were founded, they somehow became connected to the " Center for Countering Digital Hate". Who at the CCDH runs SSFN? Or is SSFN still run by the people who founded it (whoever they are)?
"According to our own Wiki article about the campaign, it's led by Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman..." This was false.Literally the first sentence of the body of the Wikipedia article on Stop Funding Fake News reads,
The campaign began in March 2019, and was backed by Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman.Those are the only two people I've seen be associated by any publication with SSFN. Maybe there are other people involved with SSFN, but it's not immediately apparent, either from their website or the Wikipedia article.
"Stop Funding Fake News and Center for Countering Digital Hate are engaged in political advocacy." Evidence pleaseThe only people that I've seen connected with SSFN, Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman, have campaigned against Corbyn and alleged antisemitism within the Labour Party.
The CCDH is supported Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson.
The CCDH is not some fringe organisation but a prominent organisation that has a role in advising the British government.Those facts doesn't help to convince me that the organization is anything other than political. You've just written that CCDH is supported by a Tory government and prominent figures in the anti-Corbyn wing of the Labour Party. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The CCDH is supported Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson. They're both establishment figures though. How surprising is it that they would oppose an anti-establishment left-wing publication? G-13114 ( talk) 19:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
They're both establishment figures though. How surprising is it that they would oppose an anti-establishment left-wing publication?I wondered how long it would take before someone made the supposed 'anti-establishment' argument... Tell me, what's the difference between the 'anti-establishment' and fringe? Alssa1 ( talk) 19:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
pieces littered with falsehoods that reinforce the opposition’s narrative promoting regime. That's a smear if it isn't true. However, Blumenthal presents much evidence demonstrating that Goette-Luciak indeed promoted MRS's narrative.
With 200 political prisoners and [new] murders every day. But according to Blumenthal, most murder victims were Ortega supporters. He reported on violence committed by Ortega's police forces but not on violence committed by MRS supporters. Blumenthal writes:
In a separate incident this June, Goette-Luciak appeared momentarily in a highly disturbing video filmed by 100% Noticias. He could be seen taking photos of a mob of opposition thugs in the act of kidnapping and beating an ageing Sandinista member they had found squatting on a local oligarch’s abandoned property. Oddly, Goette-Luciak published no photos of the incident and did not report on it.Blumenthal also links to photos showing Goette-Luciak speaking to MRS leaders.
I must be extremely clear: in the six months we lived and worked together in Nicaragua we were both very open about our plan to use our friendships with Nicaraguan opposition figures to push for the end of the Sandinista government and create careers for ourselves as journalists or consultants in the process.
Comment I just want to make it clear that although I said "use with caution", by that I did not mean that I thought Canary to be unreliable, merely that they might overegg the pudding on occasion, nothing more. For what it is worth, my impression is that the majority of attacks on Canary are politically motivated. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I went through all the Canary articles that have been mentioned by editors in the discussion. I found three articles where an identified error had been made by The Canary. They were the Laura K and fracking stories that went to IMPRESS and the story that was described as "it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS". The Canary acknowledged the error in the first 2 cases and took appropriate action. It appears that The Canary itself identified the third error and made the correction which related to The Canary's description of a pilgrimage as a march. The other stories involve innuendo, opinion, guilt by association and other diversions that don't impact on reliability. The story titled "The Canary Deleted A False Viral Story About The Sun's Coverage Of The Manchester Attack" was discussed by Press Gazette which stated: "The Canary story remains live on its website with an update at the foot of the article that reads: "The Sun contacted The Canary to request that we update the piece to reflect that The Sun went to print prior to the concert bombing. The paper issued an updated front page subsequently. We’re happy to do so" ". Burrobert ( talk) 11:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
the anti-Corbyn faction of the Labour Partyconsists of basically everyone in the Labour Party minus whoever lost their job with the change in leadership and Corbyn himself. GPinkerton ( talk) 20:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
some of the people invovled are also connected to Labour Party organisations, which is not really shocking) has nothing to do with whether or not The Canary is reliable. If anything, what you've illustrated above is that The Canary's articles are generally factually sound, and that The Canary has a generally left-Labour point of view. WP:RS policy doesn't prohibit the use of left-Labour sources (just as it doesn't prohibit the use of right-Labour sources). It's concerned with accuracy, which appears to be fulfilled here. On political issues, we should, of course, keep in mind the political leanings of the sources and present a range of views. But generally unreliable means that a source publishes false or fabricated information, not that it tends to lean left or right. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content." I'm not arguing for deprecation, but simply that the clickbait model, lack of editorial oversight, Daily Mail style sensationalism, conspiracy theories, poor grasp of facts and frequent inacccuracies leaves it insufficently reliable for non-exceptional use. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
What happens now? Burrobert ( talk) 10:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
The Canary and the website of the Israel-critical organisation, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, presented the research positively but reported it selectively in order to create the false impression that the finding was that only those on the political right were likely to be a problem for British Jews (see JFJFP, 2017, Micner, 2017). This was in effect a denial of racism.
This is not and was not intended to be an RfC and so cannot be closed. I do not think that any of us want an on going debate over a small online news outlet stuck for the rest of eternity on the top of RS/N so if people wouldn't mind, I propose that we wait for it to get archived, have a discussion on WT:RSP and if it is still unclear or if other people think they have something important to add, then we can go back and have an RfC. I think we are seriously over egging this, we've probably devoted fewer words to the RfC on the Mail on Sunday then we have devoted to a news site with maybe a thousanth of the readership. Look, I'll happily discuss this until the cows come home but I think that is a disservice to people who want to finish this up and get on to discussing useful things. ~ El D. ( talk to me) 14:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)