Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. | ||||||
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability. | ||||||
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board. | ||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||
Okdiario
Should Okdiario (headed by Eduardo Inda) be deprecated as a source? It has not only been accused of being a manipulator and spreader of hoaxes, but it has also been sentenced several times by the Spanish justice. --KajenCAT (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC) Some examples:
- The most important Consumer rights NGO of Spain, Facua: [1] [2] [3] [4][5]
- Greenpeace (points out as one of the main spreaders of hoaxes in the media) [6]
- Others: [7][8][9] [10][11][12]
--KajenCAT (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- I am somewhat confused on a quick look. I randomly checked two of the sources shown. The Greenpeace link seems to be about WhatsApp. Are the two related? One Facua source is titled, "11,000 euros: After FACUA's complaint, they initiate a sanctioning process against Okdiario for a serious infraction". The infraction: "Eduardo Inda's newspaper violates consumer protection legislation by offering subscriptions with prices that do not include taxes." In my apparent ignorance to some point, I can not see a connection between these and the site being a "manipulator and spreader of hoaxes". I did see one but all news source have likely been guilty of printing things not exactly true, or even totally false.
- The link states the source is a Spanish digital newspaper aligned with neoliberalism and Spanish nationalism. It is my opinion, at first glance, that editors should not be limited to sources that are aligned to a particular way or idea. The entire concept of balance, due weight, and neutrality depends on being able to view different points of view. It is reported that "Its editorial line is part of the political spectrum of the liberal ideology and the unity of Spain", which is in line with the article. It is expedient to take note of this. If a source is used to push a particular article in a direction not in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines we can act to protect this encyclopedia.
RFC concerning New Eastern Outlook
In this request for comment, editors decided on the reliability of New Eastern Outlook, with the near-unanimous consensus for option 4, which is that this source should be deprecated. Editors note the site being considered as a Russian disinformation outlet by multiple reliable sources and repeated publication of false content. VickKiang (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2022 (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.
Which of the following best describes the reliability of New Eastern Outlook ?
- Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
- Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
- Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
- Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be added to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources?
HouseOfChange (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment none of the above, as the reliability of a source depends on context. The claims attributed to the DOS and the USDT don't belong in the lead section of the article. M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- This looks like a whole thing. Is there an article or talk page or some such that people should refer to for context? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- would like some more context but generally NEO is Option 4, its an information operations platform which masquerades as an academic journal (much like say Mankind Quarterly but run by a state rather than a private group). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: this is my third effort, and if I screwed up the process here also, I apologize! Here are four relevant bullet points:
- 2019 discussion on deprecating "Sites identified by reputable sources as state-sponsored fake news / disinformation".
- Article New Eastern Outlook cites multiple RS identifying it as a "state-sponsored fake news / disinformation" website.
- As of the 2019 discussion, the status of NEO as state-sponsored fake news was less clear than it is in 2022. (I just created article on NEO from a re-direct a few days ago.)
- Lots more context in Archive 375
- I hope this is helpful and not too much of a wall of text. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- A quick look at those sources raises some questions such as: What makes the DOS and the USDT more RS (or less biased) than the Strategic Culture Foundation and SouthFront? M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: It isn't one isolated, unconfirmed, recent claim from
these sources
. There's a 2020 report from Trump's DOS, confirmed in 2021 and 2022 by Biden's DOS and DOT, with two green check-marked RS (Wall Street Journal and Politifact) independently confirming the "disinformation" label. Searching EU vs Disinfo turns up 49 results for journal-neo[.]org including "13.05.2020 US might be developing weaponised insects" and "07.02.2020 Scientific evidence is mounting that the coronavirus is man made and targeting the Chinese race." HouseOfChange (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)- @HouseOfChange: Incidentally, these are all related to Russia's declared enemies. Is the pursuit of academic excellence the raison d'etre of Trump's and Biden's DOS and DOTA? A search for "US might be developing weaponised insects" turns up some some interesting results. That's why I said that the reliability of the source depends on context. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: It isn't one isolated, unconfirmed, recent claim from
- A quick look at those sources raises some questions such as: What makes the DOS and the USDT more RS (or less biased) than the Strategic Culture Foundation and SouthFront? M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4. I wouldn't deprecate a source based solely on the opinion of one government... but fortunately we don't have to. [1] describes it as a source of Russian COVID-19 disinformation; [2] describes it as a "junk news" source. [3] includes a note that
in 2019, Facebook removed 12 social media accounts and 10 pages linked to the New Eastern Outlook and The New Atlas. These accounts and pages were removed for using fake accounts, creating fictitious personas, and driving users to “off-platform blogs posing as news outlets”
. These, to me, say that this source publishes intentional disinformation while trying to appear reliable and respectable; that is exactly the sort of source that deprecation exists for. --Aquillion (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)- It's also used by thousands of RS (see Google Scholar and books) for the various subjects that it covers. What Facebook does, including allowing praise of the neo-Nazi regiment Azov when it suits its political agenda, is neither here nor there. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: can you dial back the nastiness a little bit? You're lashing out because you're losing an argument and that just isn't appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: There s no nastiness in my comments, therefore, I will urge you to refrain from casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- How would you describe "What Facebook does, including allowing praise of the neo-Nazi regiment Azov when it suits its political agenda, is neither here nor there" then? Snark? Humor? Off topic comment? I just don't see how bringing up is constructive and not meant to be a dig at Aquillion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Let me make it really simple for you: you either stop casting aspersions and misrepresenting what I said or you'll take a trip to ANI. Facebook was brought up, so it's only fair to remind the readers what it does when it suits its political agenda. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why is that only fair? This is a discussion of New Eastern Outlook not facebook, whether or not facebook allows Azov to be praised or not has exactly zero bearing on the topic at hand. If you are being misrepresented then please clarify what you intended to communicate. Threatening ANI is uncalled for, such battleground behavior really isn't appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you take your time to read what I wrote again. 15:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I can't make heads or tail of it, you seem to pinball from threats to irrelevancies without actually engaging with the topic at hand which is the reliability of New Eastern Outlook. Perhaps you would care to explain what Facebook's tolerance of pro-Azov posts has to do with their removal of New Eastern Outlook linked info-ops accounts? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: Facebook, whose profit model makes it reluctant to remove false content of any kind, blocked NEO in 2019 for "coordinated inauthentic behavior," a kind of deception that isn't the same as posting deceptive content. On February 24, 2022 Facebook made a minor change to policy re Azov. I also don't see a connection beyond whataboutism. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I was hoping for an explanation besides whataboutism or trolling but it doesn't appear that one is going to be forthcoming. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: Facebook, whose profit model makes it reluctant to remove false content of any kind, blocked NEO in 2019 for "coordinated inauthentic behavior," a kind of deception that isn't the same as posting deceptive content. On February 24, 2022 Facebook made a minor change to policy re Azov. I also don't see a connection beyond whataboutism. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm done here as I can't pretend to have a decent discussion with those who personalize the comments. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Again I fail to see the connection, you weren't pretending to have a decent discussion before I engaged with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I can't make heads or tail of it, you seem to pinball from threats to irrelevancies without actually engaging with the topic at hand which is the reliability of New Eastern Outlook. Perhaps you would care to explain what Facebook's tolerance of pro-Azov posts has to do with their removal of New Eastern Outlook linked info-ops accounts? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you take your time to read what I wrote again. 15:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why is that only fair? This is a discussion of New Eastern Outlook not facebook, whether or not facebook allows Azov to be praised or not has exactly zero bearing on the topic at hand. If you are being misrepresented then please clarify what you intended to communicate. Threatening ANI is uncalled for, such battleground behavior really isn't appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Let me make it really simple for you: you either stop casting aspersions and misrepresenting what I said or you'll take a trip to ANI. Facebook was brought up, so it's only fair to remind the readers what it does when it suits its political agenda. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- How would you describe "What Facebook does, including allowing praise of the neo-Nazi regiment Azov when it suits its political agenda, is neither here nor there" then? Snark? Humor? Off topic comment? I just don't see how bringing up is constructive and not meant to be a dig at Aquillion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: There s no nastiness in my comments, therefore, I will urge you to refrain from casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: can you dial back the nastiness a little bit? You're lashing out because you're losing an argument and that just isn't appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's also used by thousands of RS (see Google Scholar and books) for the various subjects that it covers. What Facebook does, including allowing praise of the neo-Nazi regiment Azov when it suits its political agenda, is neither here nor there. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4. We have reliable sources that tell us exactly what kind of outlet this is. Even if we didn't, looking for just a moment at what they are writing about what they are calling the 'The Russian special operation in Ukraine' makes it pretty clear what is going on there. - MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 This is an easy one. Even if you don't want to believe the federal government, there is pretty much consensus in RS that New Eastern Outlook is a Russian propaganda site. Per Alexander Reid-Ross:
Additional fascinating examples of Russian state systems percolating into the alternative media ecosystem are Redfish, the New Eastern Outlook...The publication of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, New Eastern Outlook produces conspiracy theories about Rothschilds and George Soros and Islamophobic material, and hosts articles by Duginist Catherine Shakhdam and conspiracy theorist Vanessa Beeley, among others.
[13]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC) - Option 4 as per Aquillon and Dr Swag. Definitely a disinfo site made more dangerous by its thin veneer of academic respectably. 17:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC) (Above comment by Bobfrombrockley whose sig got messed up by something weird with the tildes. This sig-related comment in parens is by HouseOfChange. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC))
- Thanks HouseOfChange - trying to edit on mobile and failed badly! BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Bobfrombrockley: The publisher IOS, despite its connection to Russian Academy of Sciences, has been run by Russian government since 2013 (coincidentally, year when NEO came online.) The IOS video page mixes scholarly stuff with titles like "Why does Russia help Syria" and "The failure of the American strategy in Ukraine." HouseOfChange (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks HouseOfChange - trying to edit on mobile and failed badly! BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 Legitimate, reliable sources consistently describe this as a disinformation site. Its use should be deprecated. --Jayron32 16:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 yup, it's bad. Added to WP:UPSD as a deprecated source, but I'll update the script if it ends up as something else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Optopn 4 Russian disinfo, straight-up. Zaathras (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Hoyle, Aiden; Powell, Thomas; Cadet, Beatrice; van de Kuijt, Judith (2021). "Influence Pathways: Mapping the Narratives and Psychological Effects of Russian COVID-19 Disinformation". 2021 IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Resilience (CSR). pp. 384–389. doi:10.1109/CSR51186.2021.9527953. ISBN 978-1-6654-0285-9. S2CID 237445804.
- ^ Gallacher, John D.; Barash, Vlad; Howard, Philip N.; Kelly, John (10 February 2018). "Junk News on Military Affairs and National Security: Social Media Disinformation Campaigns Against US Military Personnel and Veterans". arXiv:1802.03572 [cs.SI].
- ^ Talamayan, Fernan (15 December 2020). "Policing Cyberspace: Understanding Online Repression in Thailand and the Philippines". SSRN 3771058.
TASS, Interfax (russian version) and RIA Novosti's reliability on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (especially on alleged attacks in russia)
as you can see in April 2022 Belgorod and Bryansk attacks's alleged attacks part sources, there are a lot of TASS sources and a couple Interfax and RIA Novosti sources, due to these sources being Russian state-controlled, id like to know if we can put them as Unreliable for Russian-Ukraine war related content.
-in addition to fake news, ria Novosti has also published "What Russia should do with Ukraine".
-TASS is probably one of the only sources (the rest being also Russian state-controlled media) to report on some of the alleged cases of "Ukrainian attacks on Russia", which is quite interesting, considering that i have seen no RS report on a lot of these alleged attacks (although not all of them, as Reuters and others have reported on some cases, but, still, a lot of cases reported by TASS havent been reported by any RS)
-Interfax has also spread news about Ukraine supposedly making a nuclear Dirty Bomb (Per this part)
187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The underlying problem here is that some editors use this whole "it's ok to include if it's attributed" or "it's reliable for statements by the Russian government even if generally it's a garbage source" to do a run around our WP:RS policies. This is junk that would normally never be included but hey, as long as you put "according to Russian government sources" in front you can put in any ridiculous claim you want. Basically it's being used to platform various Russian gov disinformation or conspiracy theories and increase their exposure. I remember back in 2014 the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 became full of disgusting and false conspiracy theories ("the bodies were moved there from a nearby morgue", "it was false flag" etc) all justified on the basis of "bUt IT's aTTribUted!". Same thing is being done here. Basic rule should be "don't include unless it's ALSO discussed in multiple other reliable sources". Volunteer Marek 22:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- finally someone that agrees that the people using these TASS bs sources (and using bs excuses) are being quite annoying. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Cuts both ways. Plenty of editors feel that because reliable sources print verbatim text of Ukraine officials without any fact-checking or due dilligence that the corresponding Wikipedia article must be updated immediately and can point to the running bbc or cnn blog of the day to justify inclusion with attribution, only for it to be walked back a day or two laterSlywriter (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. But if Ukrainian sources are discussed in other RS sources then that makes for the difference. Also, let's be clear here - Ukrainian sources ARE more reliable than Russian ones. We also have the same problem on the Attack on Snake Island article because some users insist on including Russian fantasies (hundreds killed! Helicopters destroyed! Ukrainian jets (that supposedly were destroyed two months ago) downed!) just because ... "it's attributed". It's straight up WP:GAME behavior. Volunteer Marek 23:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sure the sources are generally more reliable, but it doesn't mean that Ukranian government officials are always an accurate source of military maneuvers while in the midst of a existential crisis. Just as not everything a Russian source prints is a lie, not everything Ukrainian or Western sources publish is true.Slywriter (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- My general frustration is with Wikipedians increasingly rushing to cover Breaking news. It's impossible to do, articles will be wrong at times and the consequences are zero for doing so because "reliable sources" aka mass media cover everything these days and it's easy to find unverified information presented as fact especially in the immediate hours after an incident.Slywriter (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. But if Ukrainian sources are discussed in other RS sources then that makes for the difference. Also, let's be clear here - Ukrainian sources ARE more reliable than Russian ones. We also have the same problem on the Attack on Snake Island article because some users insist on including Russian fantasies (hundreds killed! Helicopters destroyed! Ukrainian jets (that supposedly were destroyed two months ago) downed!) just because ... "it's attributed". It's straight up WP:GAME behavior. Volunteer Marek 23:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Cuts both ways. Plenty of editors feel that because reliable sources print verbatim text of Ukraine officials without any fact-checking or due dilligence that the corresponding Wikipedia article must be updated immediately and can point to the running bbc or cnn blog of the day to justify inclusion with attribution, only for it to be walked back a day or two laterSlywriter (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also discussed here: Talk:April 2022 Belgorod and Bryansk attacks#Sources. I'd like to stress that no conspiracy theories or disputable sequences of events are involved. The discussion is only about brief statements by Russian officials, coming from their official Telegram channels. Most of these statements are covered by both Russian and non-Russian agencies, and there is no substantial difference in coverage. The difference is that the Russian agencies publish these governors' statements a bit earlier (sometimes, a day before a non-Russian one does the same thing), and some of the statements (probably, considered of lower importance) aren't covered by non-Russian agencies. No independent party has questioned the fact that these governors actually make their statements, or suggested they were false. It's just that more noticeable events get coverage abroad, while some less noticeable receive only local coverage VanHelsing.16 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- If these events are covered by independent reliable sources then what's the problem? Just use the independent reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 01:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Direct cites have greater fidelity and traceability. The third party coverage is what establishes notability, but may be processed or partial portrayals. Citing them would wind up convoluted indirect attributions such as ‘BBC noted Russian reports of 200,000 refugees crossing into Russia’ or ‘The London Times disputed Russian accounts of military progress’ — you’re getting what BBC said in talking about the item(s), not a link to what the Russian source said. Difference is of having RS be reliable as a source, something sure to be there and looked at by many instead of thinking it has to be a source of truth, Truth, or TRUTH. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- My opinion is that we should not use any Russia-based sources on this war. For example, they routinely attribute Russian attacks to Ukrainians. Just the last paragraph of this report[14] is wrong in multiple ways. Ukraine was not shelling LNR and DNR at this time, precisely because they knew Russia would use it as a pretext. The use of the verb "liberate" is just grotesque. Putin was "recognizing the sovereignty" of LNR and DNR within regions they have never controlled. The article also talks about the "conflict's escalation", rather than the "Russian invasion" of Ukraine. In fact, I'll start an RfC on TASS right now. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- If these events are covered by independent reliable sources then what's the problem? Just use the independent reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 01:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Proposal to adopt the Russian Wikipedia solution
Should points 10 and 11 of rules for mediation in Ukraine-related topics on Russian Wikipedia, as modified here, be implemented for the purposes of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine?
- Do not use the mass media materials of outlets based physically or online in Russia, Belarus or Ukraine [RUBYUA] that appeared after the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to describe the invasion itself and related events. Some usages may be allowed if a specific edit request is made, only if independent secondary reliable coverage from outside these countries on the topic requested is unavailable, is published in what would otherwise be a generally reliable source at least two days after the event's occurrence (with the exception of official statements of government entities), and there is consensus to introduce it. In particular, avoid using sources liable to censorship by Roskomnadzor.
- The official statements of the sides shall be described according to independent, secondary, reliable sources [further mentioned as ISRS], limiting the scope of mentioning of the official position by the extent to which these positions are expounded on in these sources. Military advances should not be stated as fact unless confirmed by both sides of the conflict, either as separate statements as quoted in ISRSs, or by summary of the statements in ISRSs. All mentions of these positions shall be added with appropriate attribution, in a neutral form, without excessive citations and preserving due weight to them. The addition of the positions of the officials from one side that are not mentioned in ISRSs in order to balance the mentions of the positions of officials mentioned in ISRSs is forbidden, nor should independent assessments of ISRSs be balanced by the statements of officials denying said assessments. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Survey
Note. The fragments in italics are modifications of the currently standing version in the Russian Wikipedia. Basically, since enwiki (unlike ruwiki) does not have mediators, we are either left with admins or with starting RfCs purely for whitelisting purposes. Outlets catering to the audiences of RUBYUA but outside the countries (e.g. Meduza) will be exempt and should be assessed on their merits. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment. This is a sensible proposal which would limit the amount of breaking-news-style coverage on Wikipedia. The only issue I can see with it is that "independent, secondary, reliable sources" have almost no access to the areas occupied by Russia, DNR and LNR and therefore the coverage may end up unbalanced. Alaexis¿question? 21:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Which is why the exception is there. Basically, if wants to write some section using Ukrainian sources from the occupied territories (for example by using articles like this one or this one, that's basically OK but because the quality of such reports may vary, this should be vetted via consensus. As for official statements, they are covered in independent secondary sources fairly well, so I don't see an issue with this one. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Szmenderowiecki, this certainly makes sense. One more thing, why do we need the last sentence? It seems superfluous considering that we already say that Russian sources should not be used unless there the criteria for the exception are satisfied. Alaexis¿question? 08:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's for emphasis. In general, don't use RUBYUA sources, but particularly not Russian sources because of the "fake news" law (and which Belarus already started enforcing back in 2018). Ukraine doesn't as of now have criminal liability for making misleading/false statements and the censorship is far from being as bad, but it exists, and three TV channels were ordered closed without meaningful explanation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd suggest the following wording then "Do not use the mass media materials of outlets based physically or online in Russia (liable to censorship by Roskomnadzor), Belarus or Ukraine [RUBYUA] that appeared after the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to describe the invasion itself and related events. Some usages may be allowed if a specific edit request is made, only if independent secondary reliable coverage from outside these countries on the topic requested is unavailable, is published in what would otherwise be a generally reliable source at least two days after the event's occurrence (with the exception of official statements of government entities)." This way it doesn't feel like the Roskomnadzor part is an exception to the exception. Alaexis¿question? 11:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's for emphasis. In general, don't use RUBYUA sources, but particularly not Russian sources because of the "fake news" law (and which Belarus already started enforcing back in 2018). Ukraine doesn't as of now have criminal liability for making misleading/false statements and the censorship is far from being as bad, but it exists, and three TV channels were ordered closed without meaningful explanation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Szmenderowiecki, this certainly makes sense. One more thing, why do we need the last sentence? It seems superfluous considering that we already say that Russian sources should not be used unless there the criteria for the exception are satisfied. Alaexis¿question? 08:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
support, but I'm not clear on what is being proposed. Would this be MOS, Guideline or policy? It seems commonsensical under NPOV to assume that there will be biased reporting from both sides, but as long as we are stating in the text who is making the claim, it seems fairly workable without special new rules. "Ukraine sources says X" "Russian sources say Y" is a fine way to trust the readers' ability to discern. This should've been how things are done all along. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- On ruwiki, mediatorship rules serve partly as MOS and partly as guidelines, depending on the specific text of the points. For example, point 1 of the mediatorship FAQ reads like a typical MOS rule (itself a sort of guideline), while points 10-11 are more like guidelines. I envisage this to be a temporary guideline/MOS-like rule (let's say, for half a year), and, if it proves successful, can be made a template for next military conflicts and may possibly be promoted to part of policy on NPOV. It might be a rule imposed by ArbCom as part of discretionary sanctions, but there would first have to be some sort of articulable problem, and I try to avoid the war articles unless the quality was really bad.
- The reason this is introduced is to limit additions of mutual finger-pointing of breaking news that only muddle the article with what might be irrelevant details. E.g. saying "Russians say Ukrainians attacked Belgorod <Russian ref>, while Ukrainians say Russians are bullshitting and are making false flag attacks<Ukrainian ref>" is a suboptimal way to refer to the actual events in the war. For example in WP:ARBPIA or WP:ARBAA2, IDF's, Palestinian, Armenian or Azeri claims are not taken for granted, and I don't see much difference in this one other than that we can afford Ukrainian sources some benefit of doubt, but not to the extent that would justify the treatment of UA resources on par with foreign media. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- This all seems a bit complicated to me. Can't this just be summarised as: "Russian state news sources are considered generally unreliable for content related to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine", which fits well within our established reliability processes. The second point I don't agree with introducing, because a) the section above doesn't show an issue relating to that (outside of the issue with Russian state sources in general); b) few military advances are agreed on by both parties. You can't even get a realistic death toll out of Russia; c) most of the RS reporting follows claims of either side or claims of allies of either side. The provision either means gutting our articles, or doing exactly what we're doing right now, it's not clear but either way the provision doesn't seem necessary. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- This proposal may be well intention but it creates more problems than it solves. Ukrainian sources are generally more reliable (of course not all of them) than Russian ones so why should they be treated equivalently? There might also be a couple Russian sources that are still reliable. Additionally, sources from outside the geographic area very often are, to put it bluntly, clueless about basic factual info. Confuse cities, people, developments, etc. The main problem overall is the WP:UNDUE space that is given to Russian claims, often absurd and ridiculous, as filtered through reliable sources. What we need rather is a higher bar for inclusion of Russian claims - only if they're WIDELY discussed and analyzed by RSs, not just restated here or there, should they be included. Volunteer Marek 06:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- I support the proposal that will at least make it certain that we should neither rely on the official statements of Ukraine, nor Russia unless they have been confirmed by both sides. A strict balance is certainly necessary. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose in strongest possible terms. I could see some potential argument for rejecting sources from Russia (because they have strict press controls), but the argument for omitting sources from Ukraine entirely lacks any basis in policy. Would you accept a similar proposal to, for example, ban sources from within Israel or Palestine from the entire ARBPIA topic area? Should we reject sources based in the US that cover the Iraq or Vietnam Wars? It is possible that a Ukrainian source could be considered WP:BIASED (although even that, I think, should be on a case-by-case basis), and depending on context some would be WP:PRIMARY; but the solution to that is to make it clear that the source is Ukrainian in the text, not to bar it entirely, and I would strenuously oppose even making that much a formal requirement. Yes, sources close to a conflict have potential bias, but they can also be some of the best sources available; and it is insulting to imply that an entire nation is incapable of objective journalism with no basis beyond "well it concerns them." You need at least some argument for why there is a structural problem to sanction all sources based in an entire region; we might be able to make that argument for Russia or similar regions with strict press censorship, but for Ukraine, no. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose.
confirmed by both sides of the conflict
— as in "the war, according to Ukrainian sources, or the special military operation, according to Russian sources"? Also, per WP:NOTNEWS, why does 2022 Western Russia attacks (and other articles like it) even exist? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC) - Oppose. per Space4Time3Continuum2x An unimportant person (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose As written, it also excludes independent statements and observations about conflict developments. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose There are no Russian independent media outlets left, as far as I can tell. Ukraine maintains a reasonably free press. Many Ukrainian outlets seem pretty reliable. I don't think reliable and unreliable outlets should be treated equivalently. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You can't use "free press" and "independent media" interchangeably. Read this article which proves that you are wrong. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ArvindPalaskar: is that a standing article by a still active Ukrainian publication that is critical of the Ukrainian government? Maybe Telekanal Dozhd’ or Radio Ekho Moskvy could provide us with a similar opinion concerning the Russian government's management of the press... If they still existed. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- You can't use "free press" and "independent media" interchangeably. Read this article which proves that you are wrong. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - Russian Wikipedia has to give lip-service to the idea of equivalence between Russia's strict censorship of media and Ukraine with it's relatively free media, but here on EN Wikipedia we don't have to do that. FOARP (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- You have got to be kidding right? We should accept Russian-controlled media outlets because there are no policies or guidelines against it? It is argued that the news provided by such outlets is published earlier than others. The European Journal of Communication (Measuring news bias: Russia’s official news agency ITAR-TASS’ coverage of the Ukraine crisis) wrote, "This result reveals Russia’s strategic use of the state-owned news agency for international propaganda in its ‘hybrid war’, demonstrating the effectiveness of the new approach to news bias." Does Roskomnadzor control the Russian news media? Is there any doubt that this can and will lead to propaganda?
- Policy:
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper (Specifically #1 and #2)
- WP:Verifiability:
In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.
The reliability of TASS has been continually questioned. - WP:NPOV
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
When we are using a state run news media, especially when used alone for "early print", there can be no neutrality. When one side abides by fair journalism and the other can "print what they want", how can this be true NPOV. We exclude other sources because they have been found wanting and I see this as the same.
- English Wikipedia content guideline
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources:
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered
(see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view above). "Sources" is plural. - WP:RSBREAKING:
Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched ones as soon as they are published, especially if those original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking-news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution.
- Deprecated sources would be those
sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues.
- Explanatory essays:
Recentism: is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view.
RfC on TASS
Which of the following best describes the reliability of TASS ?
- Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
- Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
- Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
- Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be added to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources? Adoring nanny (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Option 4 This report[15] is wrong in so many ways that it is difficult to know where to begin. First of all, we have the use of the phrase "conflict escalation", as if the conflict escalated somehow by itself. How about the word "invasion". Near the end, we have the sentence Putin, in response to a request from the leaders of the Donbass republics for help launched a special military operation. Are they really that daft? Surely they realize that the initial impetus came from Putin, not from the LNR or DNR. Furthermore, we have the following paragraph: Since the beginning of the escalation, "a total of 2,738 fire attacks have been recorded, including 2,477 carried out with heavy weapons." During the reviewed period the Ukrainian military fired 27,006 pieces of ammunition of various calibers, including 27 Tochka-U missiles. Multiple rocket launchers Grad, Uragan and Smerch were also used.. Multiple issues here. Who can possibly arrive at such a precise count? How many of those were in fact Russian misfires or Russian false flag attacks? Note that Tass specifically says that the attacks were fired by the Ukrainian military. Lastly, we have the following passage: Tensions on the engagement line in Donbass escalated on February 17. The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months. Numerous reports in the media mention Russian attempts to provoke Ukraine and/or false flag attacks during that time.[16][17][18] I am unable to find any reliable reports of actual Ukrainian attacks from Feb. 17-23. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:RSP already lists it under Option 2 ("Unclear or additional considerations apply"), with a comment: In the 2019 RfC, editors argued that the reliability of TASS varies based on the subject matter. Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but also agree that there are deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues. I can't see any reason to change the attitude. Of course, it's a Russian state agency and it uses propagandistic cliches promoted by the state — and we should avoid any of these on Wikipedia, regardless of the source. However, when it comes to statements such as "a Russian official said the following", TASS reporting is very accurate (i.e. the words of the officials are not falsified). Moreover, your argument about the inaccurate count of attacks is not entirely valid, because even TASS does not present it as the ultimate truth — in fact, the report says: "the office of the DPR’s representative in the Joint Center for Ceasefire Control and Coordination (JCCC) said on Friday." I.e. the data is provided by a side of the conflict, and TASS clearly states so, i.e. even this piece could be used to compare various estimates of the intensity of the attacks (for example, Ukraine said that XXX attacks were conducted[Ukrainian Source], while the DPR insisted that there were YYY attacks[TASS]; independent observers give the number NNN[another source]) VanHelsing.16 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am aware that's the theory. I guess I think that when a source fabricates as thoroughly as TASS did here, deprecation is the correct way for us to handle it. Note also that the theory is not working in practice. See the above section #TASS, Interfax (russian version) and RIA Novosti's reliability on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (especially on alleged attacks in russia) which notes it is used precisely on the Russian invasion. Furthermore, it's not really journalism when they just repeat someone's nonsensical statements without noting that it's a load of BS. Lastly, by the final paragraph where they have their false sentence The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months., it looks to me like they are saying this in their own voice. At a minimum, it's unclear that they are attributing it, and I could certainly see people reading it as a factual statement, not an attributed one. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Adoring nanny, why do you think that the statement The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months is false? Alaexis¿question? 18:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- For example, see [19]
Adoring nanny (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Russian-backed separatists have stepped up their shelling of Ukrainian forces, but Kyiv has told its troops not to return fire to avoid giving Russian President Vladimir Putin an excuse to launch an invasion.
- Thanks. I agree that the statement is *likely* false but I don't think we can have a definite proof at this point. Your video is at best indirect evidence. There was increased shelling and whether it was all false flag attacks or some of them were made by Ukrainians is hard to ascertain (Al-Jazeera had to walk back their initial statement) considering that it's an active war zone now. Alaexis¿question? 19:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- But for TASS to be supported, we would need evidence that the statement is true. See also [20] about a related series of Russian fabrications and false flag attacks. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. If you're claiming that they published fake news the onus is on you to prove it. Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't trust TASS because of general common sense considerations (it's owned by the state, that state is not a pluralist democracy where political parties can compete freely, Russia is ranked 155 out of 180 countries in the Press Freedom Index, many journalists have been murdered, etc.: see Media freedom in Russia), but I think that User:Adoring nanny has not proved that that article by TASS contains fake news. The invasion of Ukraine can be described as an escalation of pre-existing armed conflicts (Russo-Ukrainian War and War in Donbas) and the civilian casualty figure given by TASS/by the DPR’s representative - 113 killed and 517 injured - is quite accurate. Cf. HRMMU, Ukraine: civilian casualty update 13 May 2022: 117 killed and 481 injured on territory controlled by Russian affiliated armed groups. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- OSCE report, Fortune. "As documented by the humanitarian NGO Proliska, which is monitoring the conflict zone, one of the [separatists'] shells struck a kindergarten, leaving two employees with shell shock—but not injuring any of the children who were there. Proliska and journalists have also reported shelling by pro-Russian forces against the inhabitants of the Ukrainian town of Mariinka." Guardian. "The attack was part of an apparent coordinated bombardment by pro-Russian separatists in multiple locations across the 250-kilometre long frontline." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Adding the OSCE report dated February 18. See the situation reports for Feb 17 on page 4–7. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- The February 17 OSCE map shows ceasefire violations both in the government- and separatist-controlled territory, so I'm not sure how it proves that the statement in question in wrong. Alaexis¿question? 21:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Colored dots on a map don’t tell the story. You have to read the pages I pointed out and the "Table of ceasefire violations as of 17 February 20221" on page 10–13. Sure, there were more dots as on the day before but it's inconclusive at best who was shooting at whom. I spent quite a while looking at TASS news releases: with very few exceptions nothing but "Putin/Peskov/Zakharova/the Kremlin Press Service/Rep.X/Y/Z said". For a change of pace: "the DPR's representative said/Lukashenko of Belarus said/the anti-coronavirus crisis center reported". There was one item that could loosely be described as news, the FSB stating that they had arrested a Muslim terrorist with bomb making material and that he had confessed, FWIW. TASS isn't a news agency, it's an extension of the Kremlin Press Service. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Assuming this is true and this is all they do, how is it it related to their reliability, which is what this discussion should be about?
- Regarding the OSCE report, the table says the same thing as the map: there were plenty of explosions and other events in non-government-controlled areas. It doesn't necessarily mean that what Tass said is true, but it certainly does not contradict it. Alaexis¿question? 19:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- "According to TASS, a Key Russian lawmaker said ...". Properly attributed but it's the "let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" principle. When a source publishes statements by government officials—without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input—they're the bullhorn for the primary source, not a secondary source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this. However, it should be also noted that we are routinely doing the same with Ukrainian sources. An Ukrainian official John Doe says X, a non-deprecated source echoes X - without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input - and then we publish "according to John Doe, X is the case". Instead of deprecating TASS, perhaps we should engage in a discussion on what to do when a non-reliable source's statement - a statement by an Ukrainian or Russian John Doe - is reported "as such" by a source. The proposition "John Doe says X" is verifiable, but is it also notable? Should we publish it in an article dealing with X (say, war crimes), or should we only publish it in articles dealing with John Doe? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is an example of TASS reporting what the Russian transport minister said, as reported by the New York Times, i.e. noteworthyness established by a reliable secondary source. The RS also added context (imposition of punishments) and analysis (rare acknowledgment). (It might still be WP:NOTNEWS for WP purposes.) The difference between Ukrainian and Russian sources at the moment is that there are independent sources on the ground in Ukraine, so there usually is some checking on official reports. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this. However, it should be also noted that we are routinely doing the same with Ukrainian sources. An Ukrainian official John Doe says X, a non-deprecated source echoes X - without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input - and then we publish "according to John Doe, X is the case". Instead of deprecating TASS, perhaps we should engage in a discussion on what to do when a non-reliable source's statement - a statement by an Ukrainian or Russian John Doe - is reported "as such" by a source. The proposition "John Doe says X" is verifiable, but is it also notable? Should we publish it in an article dealing with X (say, war crimes), or should we only publish it in articles dealing with John Doe? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- "According to TASS, a Key Russian lawmaker said ...". Properly attributed but it's the "let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" principle. When a source publishes statements by government officials—without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input—they're the bullhorn for the primary source, not a secondary source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Colored dots on a map don’t tell the story. You have to read the pages I pointed out and the "Table of ceasefire violations as of 17 February 20221" on page 10–13. Sure, there were more dots as on the day before but it's inconclusive at best who was shooting at whom. I spent quite a while looking at TASS news releases: with very few exceptions nothing but "Putin/Peskov/Zakharova/the Kremlin Press Service/Rep.X/Y/Z said". For a change of pace: "the DPR's representative said/Lukashenko of Belarus said/the anti-coronavirus crisis center reported". There was one item that could loosely be described as news, the FSB stating that they had arrested a Muslim terrorist with bomb making material and that he had confessed, FWIW. TASS isn't a news agency, it's an extension of the Kremlin Press Service. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- The February 17 OSCE map shows ceasefire violations both in the government- and separatist-controlled territory, so I'm not sure how it proves that the statement in question in wrong. Alaexis¿question? 21:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. If you're claiming that they published fake news the onus is on you to prove it. Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- But for TASS to be supported, we would need evidence that the statement is true. See also [20] about a related series of Russian fabrications and false flag attacks. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I agree that the statement is *likely* false but I don't think we can have a definite proof at this point. Your video is at best indirect evidence. There was increased shelling and whether it was all false flag attacks or some of them were made by Ukrainians is hard to ascertain (Al-Jazeera had to walk back their initial statement) considering that it's an active war zone now. Alaexis¿question? 19:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- For example, see [19]
- Adoring nanny, why do you think that the statement The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months is false? Alaexis¿question? 18:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am aware that's the theory. I guess I think that when a source fabricates as thoroughly as TASS did here, deprecation is the correct way for us to handle it. Note also that the theory is not working in practice. See the above section #TASS, Interfax (russian version) and RIA Novosti's reliability on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (especially on alleged attacks in russia) which notes it is used precisely on the Russian invasion. Furthermore, it's not really journalism when they just repeat someone's nonsensical statements without noting that it's a load of BS. Lastly, by the final paragraph where they have their false sentence The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months., it looks to me like they are saying this in their own voice. At a minimum, it's unclear that they are attributing it, and I could certainly see people reading it as a factual statement, not an attributed one. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3, deprecation would remove a potentially useful source of quotes from Russian officials. It should not be used for statement of facts.Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3/Status quo statement of facts are now dubious, given it is now illegal to report facts the Kremlin considers inconvenient. There is a time component involved in this however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- 3 at best, probably 4. This is basically a propaganda agency, and essentially nothing they report about the war in Ukraine is accurate. The only thing that gives me pause is that we sometimes need to make reference to false claims in TASS, so as a primary source for it's own and Putin's b.s. ("denazification", etc.), we need to cite it. It can't be deprecated the point we block posting of citations of it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 /leave as is this issue was extensively discussed in 2019 and I see no reason to change, as per VanHelsing.16 comments above Ilenart626 (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4, they've gone downhill in the last three years. Previously their bias was expressed through omission which isn't a problem for us, however disinformation (the traditional realm of RT and Sputnik) is a problem for us. Two or three years ago TASS started publishing RT and Sputnik style disinformation which has been immensely disappointing but leaves us no other option than to deprecate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have any proof for that? Alaexis¿question? 16:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 - reliable only for the position du jour of the Kremlin. Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 basically only WP:ABOUTSELF for official Russian government positions, or to cite examples of Russian state propaganda, never for stating facts in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 13:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 Dropping from 2 to 3 seems appropriate given the current circumstances. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 - generally unreliable for facts, reliable for Russian government statements. starship.paint (exalt) 14:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 - I agree with VanHelsing. This was discussed extensively in 2019. It remains a valid source for official Russian viewpoint, in which it is reliable for. Gorebath (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 or 4. Definitely unreliable and occasionally out right fake. Volunteer Marek 08:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 or Option 3 It is a state-owned media that is still great for offering details about the Russian government. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4. If we need to report on anything that comes from it, we can do so through a reliable secondary source that provides appropriate context. There is no reason to link directly to this propaganda organ. It can be trusted for absolutely nothing. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 Use it to source a fact-free statement issued by the Kremlin, sure. Unusable in any other situation. Zaathras (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 with a caveat (status quo). I understand the concerns regarding the effect of the new censorship law however I see only one example in all Option 3/4 votes. It was provided by u:Adoring Nanny and while the statement in question is likely to be false we can't be sure about it. I will change my !vote to Option 3 if such examples are provided. Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Reuters. "The TASS, RIA and Interfax news agencies quoted "a representative of a competent body" in Russia on Sunday as saying Ukraine was developing nuclear weapons at the destroyed Chernobyl nuclear power plant that was shut down in 2000."
- NY Times. "After Russia attacked an area near the nuclear complex in Zaporizhzhia, leading to a fire, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine called it “nuclear terrorism.” But according to a Kremlin statement reported in Tass, the military seized the facility to prevent Ukrainians and neo-Nazis from “organizing provocations fraught with catastrophic consequences.”
- NY Times. Two false claims in TASS, original and translation ("Kremlin press office stated
- Thanks for providing examples. In all cases it's clearly attributed ("The Russian Federation's Ministry of Defence reported...", "Putin told Macron", "a representative of a competent body"). The last one is a bit dodgy but reporting news with attribution to anonymous knowledgeable sources is hardly unique to Tass. Alaexis¿question? 21:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 Both Reuters [21] and Getty Images [22] have cut ties with Tass, we should as well. Tass has recently begun publishing obviously false information/propaganda, like that Zelenskyy has fled Ukraine (Video evidence suggests otherwise) or that the Ukrainians are massacring civilians in Donbas. - MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- It says "A story published by the Russian News Agency Tass this week quoted a Russian lawmaker saying Zelenskyy “hastily fled” Kyiv for Lviv in far western Ukraine." Assuming the said lawmaker said it, why is it false? Alaexis¿question? 08:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Quoting someone as cover for further spreading disinformation, i.e., without TASS saying that there are contradicting reports. USN continues, "It's one of many distorted claims to emerge from a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign that aims to strengthen domestic support for the invasion and undermine the resolve of Ukrainians." From the other source (Politico): "Tass' uncritical reporting of information from the Russian government, which critics and media experts say is propaganda.", "Tass has parroted Russia government claims that Ukrainians killed civilians in the Donbas region and dumped their bodies into mass graves, a claim that news organizations and experts say is false." See also here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not saying that there are contradicting reports is not good journalistic practice but it's different from reporting falsehoods. I totally agree that their reporting is selective but I think that the criteria for deprecation is publishing lies deliberately. Alaexis¿question? 21:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Quoting someone as cover for further spreading disinformation, i.e., without TASS saying that there are contradicting reports. USN continues, "It's one of many distorted claims to emerge from a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign that aims to strengthen domestic support for the invasion and undermine the resolve of Ukrainians." From the other source (Politico): "Tass' uncritical reporting of information from the Russian government, which critics and media experts say is propaganda.", "Tass has parroted Russia government claims that Ukrainians killed civilians in the Donbas region and dumped their bodies into mass graves, a claim that news organizations and experts say is false." See also here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- It says "A story published by the Russian News Agency Tass this week quoted a Russian lawmaker saying Zelenskyy “hastily fled” Kyiv for Lviv in far western Ukraine." Assuming the said lawmaker said it, why is it false? Alaexis¿question? 08:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 - generally unreliable for facts, reliable for Russian government statements. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 In other words, against classification attempts like this which are always overgeneralizations, even for the worst sources such as this. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2, I don't see any reason yet for changing this from the previous RfC, where
the reliability of Tass varies based on the content
. It was the same thing with its articles about Ukraine etc from 2014 onwards with strong pro-government bias and parroting claims by Russian government/proxies. So still, for such topics it is best avoided, but is useful for reporting what officials say. I would go for option 3 if it is clearer that in general it is more problematic. Mellk (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC) - Option 2 or 3 Not usable for statements of fact relating to Russian government, and barely usable for statements of opinion where not covered also by WP:SECONDARY sources. Allow use for non-controversial topics relating to Russian culture and society. CutePeach (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 Nothing seems to have really changed since the last discussion. Azuredivay (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 That article by TASS is questionable but it's not fake news. "TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but ... deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues" seems a sensible assessment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 Cherry picking statements in news media is original research. Major American media supported false claims about Iraq in order to support an invasion in 2001-3, but they are still rs. TASS' claim that the Donbass republics asked for a Russian invasion is not necessarily false, considering that according to International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, they "declared independence from Ukraine" and the "central government of Ukraine regards the republics as being under terrorist control." Can Adoring nanny explain why they think these republics would not ask the Russians to invade? The issue seems to be which facts TASS chooses to emphasize, rather than whether they are true. WEIGHT is sufficient to prevent an over-emphasis of non-Western perspectives, we don't have to add another ban, particularly when there is no evidence for it. TFD (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- You mean the de-facto republics that have been formally recognized by Russia and the other de-facto states South Ossetia and Abkhazia? That article ought to be called "International non-recognition", judging by the long list of states and international organizations opposing recognition. As long as we're citing an unreliable source, i.e., Wikipedia, the 2014 Donbas status referendums says that a number of nations declared the referendums to be unconstitutional and lacking legitimacy. Even Belarus hasn't recognized them; they appear to be in the "supporting" column for "respectfully understand[ing] the decision of the Russian side to recognize". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 as first choice, no on options 1 and 2. The European Alliance of News Agencies (EANA) suspended TASS on February 27, stating that because of "the new media regulation enforced by the Russian government (Roskomnadzor), which is heavily restricting media freedom", TASS is not "able to provide unbiased news." On May 13, their general assembly voted to make the suspension indefinite. According to Reuters, TASS is "not aligned with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles" of acting with "integrity, independence and freedom from bias." This sentence on the reliable sources list currently reads like black humor:
Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government.
We do not need TASS for accurate reports on what the Russian government stated, and they are no more reliable than RT or Sputnik now. The last RfC was three years ago, before laws restricting freedom of expression were amended and incorporated into the Penal Code, making them punishable by up to 15 years in prison. RIA Novosti also needs to be looked at; the last discussion was in 2016. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC) - Option 2 nothing has changed since the last RfC. Being biased doesn't make it any less reliable than the usual RS whose coverage of the Ukraine war has exposed their bias. M.Bitton (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2: If we discount any media coming out of Russia that is potentially subject to state propaganda then as of March (but more accurately, since long before) we've discounted all media coming out of Russia. And by that standard, all outlets in authoritarian regimes. It doesn't take an editorial genius to reasonably infer when state-run media might be factually unreliable. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- @SamuelRiv: it has been repeatedly noted that our WP:RS policy does in fact de-facto preclude the use of most outlets in authoritarian regimes in most contexts. This is generally viewed as a feature not a bug. Personally I don't think its either but I do think its more or less inevitable given the inherent contradictions between wikipedia's core values and those of said authoritarian states. Authoritarian states are habitual liars, there isn't really any other model... To stop lying would undermine the legitimacy of the very party or entity which instituted the authoritarian system to ensure their legitimacy in the first place. This same problem occurs in non-authoritarian governments the difference being that non-authoritarian governments can not force independent media outlets to conform to their lies, in fact much the opposite happens... Nothing the independent media likes more than a nice big juicy lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 - The "additional consideration" being that it is unreliable for any controversial events involving Russia. TASS is used elsewhere as well, where its reporting is accurate. No need to deprecate the source entirely. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 - The long-standing precautions about it as state-run media still seems valid and obvious, with recent events being an instance of where additional considerations apply. I don’t see anything changed about any areas where past cites were made, or anything to indicate where it was accurate is no longer true, or much for a generalisation past the topic of the Ukraine war. And as I said in recent discussion above, even on the Ukraine war I think a direct cite may still be best in some cases - just as usual WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2/3 Generally unreliable, reliable for statements of the Russian state and pro-government politicians (and perhaps for uncontroversial minor facts), very unreliable for controversial facts on topics where the Russian state has an interest. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 - Generally unreliable, but reliable for official statements of the Russian government officials and state decrees. Grandmaster 21:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. TASS is the official state news agency of Russia. I don't think TASS has any reason to distort statements of say president Putin or laws passed by the Russian parliament. Quite the contrary, this is where the official information is published, therefore TASS should be considered a reliable source to reflect the official position of Russia, with proper attribution. However, when it comes to general reporting, TASS is a propaganda outlet, and cannot be used for statements of fact. For reliable news coverage better use third party sources with a better reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Grandmaster 10:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3. Of course they also publish many outright fabrications (which would be option "4"), but I am against depreciating anything. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 or 4. As others have stated, Reuters and Getty Images have cut ties with them. MBFC has them listed as mixed on facts, biased on politics, and limited press freedom. It has suggested they promote conspiracy theories and it also describes them as "100% Russian propaganda all the time."[23]Disconnected Phrases (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4, roughly half a century too late. TASS is a propaganda operation. We can discuss what it says, as described in reliable independent sources, but not cite it as an authority. I learned this at school. I left school in 1987. Why are we still discussing this? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4: The one good argument I've seen against it is that it does sometimes provide quotes from Russian government officials. I could see an exception in this case but to be honest I'm a little worried that a source that fabricates information as blatantly as TASS does might also not be reliable for the things we think they might be reliable for. Other than that, blatantly fabricating information is an instant deprecate vote from me. Loki (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Could the editors who voted Option 3 or 4 provide a few references to blatantly false information published by TASS? I guess those who voted Option 2 might be willing to change their vote if they were provided with some examples of fake news. So far I've seen opinions but no evidence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- This report by News Guard might be helpful to you. [24] Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- thank you. I read half of the report and came to the conclusion that it is even less reliable than TASS itself. TASS truthfully reports the voice of the Russian government: that's all it does. It doesn't add any critical comment and background, it's just the voice of the government. It omits lots of stuff, but at least it doesn't falsify anything, so it's quite reliable (albeit incredibly poor and openly biased). News Guard's report, on the other hand, contains factual mistakes. E.g.
For example, a July 2021 article titled, “OPCW report proves Germany’s link to provocation with Navalny — lower house’s commission,” claimed that the poisoning of Navalny was “anti-Russian provocation” linked to Germany.
As one can read in that article, the claim that the Navalny affaire was an anti-Russian provocation was not made by TASS but by Vasily Piskarev, chairman of a Duma commission. TASS is reporting (with attribution) Piskarev's statement. So News Guard is making a blatant mistake that no experienced editor of Wikipedia would ever make. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)- I think you're misunderstanding the point that News Guard is trying to make. They are illustrating that TASS often uncritically repeats statements by the Russian government, even when they have been shown to be false elsewhere. It says this several times in the report, including on the title page: "The site uncritically promotes the false claims of the Russian government." The quote you provided came after the sentence "TASS also has advanced false claims about the August 2020 poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny." [emphasis added] Journalism is intended to be held to a higher standard than Wikipedia articles.
- I would add to their analysis that TASS attributes ridiculous claims to unnamed sources in the government. For particularly ridiculous claims they insulate themselves further by nesting attributions like "'According to conclusions by Western experts, the Kiev regime was extremely close to creating a nuclear explosive device based on plutonium due to its covert obtainment from spent nuclear fuel stored in the country’s territory. Ukrainian specialists could have made such a device within several months,' the source said."[25] This tactic has been in play since the 80s when TASS reported that Peter Nikolayev reported that according to "British and East German scientists" AIDS was man-made, had been tested on humans at Fort Detrick, and had leaked from the lab there accidentally.[26]
- If you look at my vote, you will note that I quoted MBFC as saying that TASS "promotes conspiracy theories" and is "100% Russian propaganda," not that they misreported that propaganda. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- MBFC is also an unreliable source per WP consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I attributed those statements to them, so my reporting of the unreliable source stands, according to the logic being used to justify the continuation of considering TASS reliable. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- MBFC is also an unreliable source per WP consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- thank you. I read half of the report and came to the conclusion that it is even less reliable than TASS itself. TASS truthfully reports the voice of the Russian government: that's all it does. It doesn't add any critical comment and background, it's just the voice of the government. It omits lots of stuff, but at least it doesn't falsify anything, so it's quite reliable (albeit incredibly poor and openly biased). News Guard's report, on the other hand, contains factual mistakes. E.g.
- I would have maintained it at 2 instead of dropping to 3 but for the current situation viz a viz the West which will likely result in some deterioration but I should add that I don't really have any evidence of that and News Guard is not a reliable source. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Selfstudier, I think it is fascinating that you find News Guard to be an unreliable source. Happily, in the report, they provide links to all of their claims and the basis for their reasoning, so if you disagree with them, you can see why they say what they say. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is the current WP consensus, afaik. Selfstudier (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Selfstudier, I think it is fascinating that you find News Guard to be an unreliable source. Happily, in the report, they provide links to all of their claims and the basis for their reasoning, so if you disagree with them, you can see why they say what they say. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Gitz6666, please actually read the discussion. The very first comment here provides exactly the kind of reference you're asking for. Volunteer Marek 21:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- This report by News Guard might be helpful to you. [24] Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- But here is more: [27], [28], [29] [30]. It's not like it's hard to find this stuff. Volunteer Marek 21:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here we go again, TASS is not the Daily Mail, Jeez.Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree: it is not. Right now TASS produces a fountain of intentional disinformation on behalf of Russian government. One can not say the same about Daily Mail. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Don't tell me...while all Ukranian sources are a fountain of truth, right? I see a couple of !voters here saying Euromaidan is fine.Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree: it is not. Right now TASS produces a fountain of intentional disinformation on behalf of Russian government. One can not say the same about Daily Mail. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here we go again, TASS is not the Daily Mail, Jeez.Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- But here is more: [27], [28], [29] [30]. It's not like it's hard to find this stuff. Volunteer Marek 21:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 per Adoring nanny's, MrOllie's Disconnected Phrases' and Space4Time3Continuum2x's analyses, which show that TASS has published false and fabricated information and should be deprecated as such. TASS' reliability has worsened and needs to be reevaluated since its last discussion in 2019, which is particularly important given the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia. WP:DEPS also establishes that in this scenario it can still be used as a source for the position of the Russian government, but at any rate said position would already be covered by more reliable sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Daily Mail and Beergate
At Beergate#Responses_to_Starmer's_and_Rayner's_statements, there is a paragraph about what the Daily Mail have said about as aspect of the story. This has been justified via a citation to a Guardian article that was criticising the Mail’s coverage. Elsewhere in the article, there have been attempts to cover what The Sun has said. This seems to me to be inappropriate, but what do you think, o learned noticeboard? Do you have advice for these situations? See discussion at Talk:Beergate#Daily_Mail_coverage and Talk:Beergate#The_Sun,_May_2021 plus edit comments. Bondegezou (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not really an RS issue, if an RS says a non RS said something we can source it to the RS. This seems more of a wp:undue issue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest the whole article is WP:UNDUE. It should be a paragraph in the Starmer article. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Cool. Maybe we should also shrink Partygate to a one-sentence footnote in the Boris Johnson article? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Aye, but Partygate isn't just about Johnson, much as many would like it to be. Also Partygate wasn't 75% invented by the Daily Mail because their proprietor doesn't like Starmer's intention to cancel non-dom status. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's true. But I'd say 80%. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Aye, but Partygate isn't just about Johnson, much as many would like it to be. Also Partygate wasn't 75% invented by the Daily Mail because their proprietor doesn't like Starmer's intention to cancel non-dom status. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Cool. Maybe we should also shrink Partygate to a one-sentence footnote in the Boris Johnson article? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest the whole article is WP:UNDUE. It should be a paragraph in the Starmer article. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion is a bit vague about exactly which of many edits are the controversial ones, but I look at the current Beergate page and see what I regard as problems.
For its 15 January front page, the Daily Mail used pictures from the video under its headline "Starmer the Covid party hypocrite".[16]
has a cite to The Guardian but WP:RS/QUOTE says cites for quotes should be the original i.e. Daily Mail.... Labour had said that Rayner was not present, but on 30 April 2022 the Daily Mail said Labour acknowledged she had been there, and their initial statement had been a mistake.
is an attributed statement but not about opinion so would only belong if the story was about Daily Mail rather than Rayner.She also retweeted a Daily Mail story ...
John Nicolson, an SNP MP, characterised the photo in the Daily Mail as "disinformation", because Frank Dobson, who died in 2019, was at the event.
is false, the cited source doesn't say the photo is disinformation, but says her tweet's usage of it is. These are little problems that will probably be cleared up when the recentism fades, but the talk page argument from Bondegezou against dave souza -- "You are using the Guardian citation to get around the rule that we can’t use the Daily Mail." -- is unfortunate because there is no hint where this "rule" is. Maybe it's undue, maybe there was something impolite about it, certainly it should be properly attributed, but suggesting that a quote of the newspaper cannot even be cited looks like a misinterpretation of WP:DAILYMAIL1 not a PAG. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)- Thanks, Peter, the version of the Dorries / Nicolson bit you've quoted was from this revision by DeFacto, I've revised that to follow the sources. While I was content with the brief mention, the Cabinet Secretary responsible for tackling disinformation retweeting a link to a Daily Mail attack piece with a misleadingly cropped photo, and claiming it's ok as a generic stock photo, looks significant. In fairness, she's got a point about "the pictures of the PM with a birthday cake outside a school - not in cake free Downing St.", but I think the captions made that clear, and they didn't photoshop it into No. 10 to represent the famous cake ambush. . dave souza, talk 16:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- At least for me, if we have an RS explicitly pointing to a nonRS piece, all this being considered DUE to include, then including the cite to the nonRS piece immediately next to the RS cite is fair and reasonable. If there is concern this implicitly shows support of the RS, then perhaps bundle these ala "(nonRS cite) via (RS cite)". --Masem (t) 15:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- As I understand it, The Daily Mail essentially launched the recent investigation through its "investigative journalism" (or political attack angle), so I cannot see that we cannot mention the paper at all in this article. It seems to me, per WP:DAILYMAIL, this is an exceptional case - it says "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion", not a perfect match to the current situation but should guide us there is not an entire blanket ban on the paper. I think using The Guardian as the source to describe Daily Mail involvement, not using a Daily Mail cite, is the correct approach. Rwendland (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the discussion so far. I take the point this is partly a WP:DUE argument. I don't see that the edit of concern is WP:DUE, and by edit of concern I mean this. The article is about Beergate, what Starmer did or didn't do. We can cover that topic using reliable sources: there's no need to use the Mail (or Sun). There is nothing in the Mail's reporting that isn't either reliably attributed elsewhere (in which case, we use those reliable sources) or isn't reliably attributed elsewhere (in which case, it's not reliably sourced and we shouldn't be saying it). Where the Mail first broke a story, we can say that, as we do in the fifth paragraph of the "Reports after police reopened investigation" section (where we cover The Mail on Sunday breaking the story of the leaked Labour schedule). However, the edit in question wasn't about the Mail breaking a story. It was just airing the Mail's headline/editorial line. The Mail's headlines/editorial line in response to political events provides no reliable information about reality: that is, it is not a reliable source. Using the Guardian article as an excuse to air the Mail's line, without actually describing what the Guardian article is saying, seems to me like a backdoor attempt to use the Mail despite our consensus that it is not reliable -- just like the earlier attempts to include The Sun in this edit. Bondegezou (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- As I understand it, The Daily Mail essentially launched the recent investigation through its "investigative journalism" (or political attack angle), so I cannot see that we cannot mention the paper at all in this article. It seems to me, per WP:DAILYMAIL, this is an exceptional case - it says "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion", not a perfect match to the current situation but should guide us there is not an entire blanket ban on the paper. I think using The Guardian as the source to describe Daily Mail involvement, not using a Daily Mail cite, is the correct approach. Rwendland (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for these helpful pointers, the topic is a story that at the outset was reported by The Sun on Sunday, then when Partygate reached the point where other party leaders were calling on Johnson to resign, the Daily Mail (or the government using it as a mouthpiece) brought up "Beergate" as a counter-attack. Thus, both papers are a significant part of the story, and as primary sources are useful to clarify our understanding of points about their coverage shown in reliable secondary sources. Online versions of both papers could get altered, so reporting or listing by other websites can show what they said at or near the time, for example Wayback Machine archives. I think these are instances where primary sources, together with secondary source reporting on wording, help to explain the "controversy". If needed, can go through each point when time permits. . dave souza, talk 17:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail headline is from the print edition not dailymail.co.uk, but I can see a copy of the front page with pressreader.com. So the cite could be title = STARMER THE COVID PARTY HYPOCRITE, publication = Daily Mail, date = 15 January 2022, page = 1, authors = Daniel Martin and Andrew Jehring. If I'm understanding MOS:SIC, the quote capitalization should be as in the original. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think there is a distinction here to be made which may be significant enough to overcome the deprecation of DM as a source. "
The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion.
" is relevant here; One of those rare cases could be thus: that the DM wrote something may be necessary to tell the full story of a situation, especially when other sources are noting the importance of what DM wrote. In that limited sense, citing the original DM piece should be fine alongside of the source which notes its role in the controversy. In this case, it's a use-mention distinction kind of thing; we aren't using DM as a source of information, we mention the the DM article as playing a role in the events at hand, and including the specific article at the center of the controversy, not because it is a good source, but because we discuss it in the text and it should be accessible for the reader for further inspection, seems valid. --Jayron32 18:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)- But where (how?) do you draw the line? In any article on UK politics, you could say, “The Daily Mail said this,” using that justification. This would just end up giving the unwanted impression that Wikipedia sees the Mail as a reliable source. How do we decide when the Mail played a large enough role in events that this is appropriate, versus when this is just being used as an excuse to include the Mail’s (unreliable) version of (others’) events? With the edit under discussion, what the Mail said then isn’t significant for the article topic. Or do you disagree? Bondegezou (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- The DM through an archive can be a reliable source for its exact wording when the article in question is shown to be significant by a reliable secondary source which may summarise or quote from it, but will usually leave out a lot of the context. . dave souza, talk 19:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- @ Jayron32, thanks, that's what I tried to say in my edit summary when reinstating the Sun paragraph. Reliable sources show the significance of the Sun on Sunday article, from the Wayback Machine the reader can inspect it, and the points I quoted from it about the Labour response at the time being "The Tories’ clearly haven’t read their own rules", a workplace meeting, "They paused for dinner as the meeting was during the evening", ties in with the reliable secondary source saying "Labour’s line is, and always has been, that after a day campaigning, and an evening working in the office on campaign matters, Starmer had a drink while sharing a takeaway meal with party colleagues and that, although England was in lockdown, indoor gatherings were allowed for “work purposes” and that eating and drinking like this was allowed if “reasonably necessary for work”. I think that quoting that bit from the original primary source is reasonable, but even without quoting it, the primary source confirms that the secondary statement was true of that first publication. Comments? . . dave souza, talk 19:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- But where (how?) do you draw the line? In any article on UK politics, you could say, “The Daily Mail said this,” using that justification. This would just end up giving the unwanted impression that Wikipedia sees the Mail as a reliable source. How do we decide when the Mail played a large enough role in events that this is appropriate, versus when this is just being used as an excuse to include the Mail’s (unreliable) version of (others’) events? With the edit under discussion, what the Mail said then isn’t significant for the article topic. Or do you disagree? Bondegezou (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- That what the DM wrote influenced this story is supported by several RSes, so has due weight to be added and sourced to just those reliable sources. However, as the DM is deprecated, I don't think we should use any additional information which could only be sourced from it, as that would be giving undue weight to stuff that is only mentioned in the unreliable source. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Now Bondegezou has pointed to the "edit of concern". It was not about the printed-edition Daily Mail headline which is still indirectly cited in the Beergate article. Instead it's an edit which among other things bases a Daily Mail quote on an article in The Guardian saying
The Daily Mail, which had called for the police to reopen investigations, said that the decision to do so "placed detectives in the difficult position" of knowing their decision would have major political ramifications. ...
etc. But Daily Mail actually wroteBut his opponents said this had placed detectives in the difficult position ...
In other words The Guardian distorted the quote to make it appear that's Daily Mail's statement of fact, and the edit of concern would put that in Wikipedia. I see this as a justification of the WP:RS/QUOTE guideline's words:To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted.
The original source being quoted is Daily Mail, and in this case The Guardian should not be used per WP:RSCONTEXT, the context being what Daily Mail actually said. Apparently the quote in that edit was removed later, and I don't see how it could be saved. However, for the printed-edition Daily Mail headline STARMER THE COVID PARTY HYPOCRITE: The original source is Daily Mail print edition, I supplied the material necessary for the cite, and since it is opinion it is possible to use it (RS/QUOTE only makes an exception if it is not possible). Citing just The Guardian would not meet the guideline's requirement. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC) - Agree with Slatersteven. The ban on the Daily Mail only refers to using them as a source, it does not prohibit us from mentioning them if they are reported in a rs. In fact "Beergate" was broken by The Sun which is also a banned source. Avoiding mention of these sources in the article distorts the story. TFD (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- @ Peter Gulutzan, thanks for that information, I'd missed the ambiguity in the Guardian's account. Most of the quote was still in the article, but it had been changed into a paragraph on the source's comment on the Mail story. I've rephrased it to restore the focus while still pointing out the source's comment, and noted the headline wording; "The Daily Mail on 10 May said "Starmer accused of piling pressure on police"." Think it's brest to avoid the headline capitalisation if possible. . . . dave souza, talk 09:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- The issue really is not using the Mail, per se, but the fact that the article still doesn't really articulate the issue that Beergate is something largely orchestrated by the Mail through a slew of highly dubious headlines (some of which tell you exactly why it's deprecated). Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan, The Four Deuces, and Black Kite: I'm not against discussing the Mail's role in reporting on the story. The article talks about the Mail's (and the Sun's role) in various places. But this edit isn't describing the Mail breaking a story. It's just picking out some Mail headlines to repeat them. Those headlines don't add anything to the article's factual reporting, because they're not reliable, so what are they there for? We could litter every UK politics article with "And the Daily Mail said this...", and we'd end up giving the impression that Wikipedia believes what the Mail says. There has to be some WP:DUE reason to be talking about the Mail.
- So, yes, if we're talking about the Mail, we can apply WP:RS/QUOTE, but do we have some guidance over when we should be talking about the Mail? The edit in question wasn't adding in what the Mail said to discuss it. It was, it seems to me, just adding in what the Mail said to give visibility to it. Have I explained my concern here? Bondegezou (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou, Peter Gulutzan, The Four Deuces, and Black Kite: – as amended in this diff, it's clear that we're using a reliable secondary source that discusses the shifting story promoted by the DM, part of showing both that the DM is promoting an unreliable [party] line, and that it's a significant player in the [fake] controversy. Takes longer if people delete properly sourced material rather than trying to improve the wording. . dave souza, talk 12:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- I guess that particular edit is arguably not a clear violation of WP:RS/QUOTE. But it doesn't fix the problems with the headline quote.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan:, in light of the formatting issue with the headline quote and the lack of a usable primary source, I've paraphrased it. Hope that fixes the problems with that paragraph. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 03:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- I guess that particular edit is arguably not a clear violation of WP:RS/QUOTE. But it doesn't fix the problems with the headline quote.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou, Peter Gulutzan, The Four Deuces, and Black Kite: – as amended in this diff, it's clear that we're using a reliable secondary source that discusses the shifting story promoted by the DM, part of showing both that the DM is promoting an unreliable [party] line, and that it's a significant player in the [fake] controversy. Takes longer if people delete properly sourced material rather than trying to improve the wording. . dave souza, talk 12:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @ Peter Gulutzan, thanks for that information, I'd missed the ambiguity in the Guardian's account. Most of the quote was still in the article, but it had been changed into a paragraph on the source's comment on the Mail story. I've rephrased it to restore the focus while still pointing out the source's comment, and noted the headline wording; "The Daily Mail on 10 May said "Starmer accused of piling pressure on police"." Think it's brest to avoid the headline capitalisation if possible. . . . dave souza, talk 09:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- We can cite non-RSes via RSes that quote or cite them; that is to a certain extent the point of an RS. If we couldn't do that, we couldn't cite anything to anyone, because everything would ultimately come down to someone doing original research on primary data. The question in this case is whether it is WP:DUE, whether it should be quoted or paraphrased, and so on, not whether the Guardian is a RS for what the Daily Mail published. It is, however, important to pay attention to the context of the proximate source. If the Guardian source is like "here's a quote where the Daily Mail says something terrible and stupid and obviously factually wrong", it's a misuse of the source to pull the Daily Mail quote out and use it without that context. Part of the reason it's acceptable to cite a secondary RS quoting an otherwise unreliable source is because we trust the proximate source to verify what's said in that manner; if you omit the context from the proximate source then that is lost. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: In this paragraph we now paraphrase or repeat DM quotes from the Guardian article, and show the context of the Guardian's opinion that the DM that day was inconsistent in saying Starmer was doing something wrong but superficially it was the right thing and he had no choice, and the DM had previously been pushing the police to put him in that position. . . dave souza, talk 03:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- The article still contains direct quotes of Daily Mail, including editorial and headline material. For that, Daily Mail is a reliable source, and an acceptable source (WP:NEWSORG), and the source that is necessary to "ensure accuracy" while not being "partisan secondary" (WP:RS/QUOTE), and a better source than The Guardian which has been shown to distort (WP:RSCONTEXT). The guideline should be followed or the quotes should be scrubbed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2: See if there is a local consensus to mention the topic or not, and if so then I suggest watch the context and just use a cite to Daily Mail. A WP:DEPRECATED deprecated source is not WP:BLACKLIST blacklisted, and the difference is that exceptions are allowed by local consensus. To quote sections of the DEPRECATED text: “ Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances. “ and “Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint.“ VERIFIABILITY should overrule lesser considerations, and a third or fourth-hand partial of the Daily Mail words just seems less desirable than a direct cite to the whole piece. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan and Markbassett: Thanks, have added the primary source archived from the online version of the date in question. Could also add its editorial, don't think that's so controversial. . . dave souza, talk 11:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for listening. I hope that the rest will also be properly cited eventually but Wikipedia has no deadlines. The important thing is that citing Daily Mail is accepted practice in some circumstances. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've got a bit further with that, as well as finding some more reliable sources, and together they help to explain the context of what happened. Work in progress! . . dave souza, talk 22:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for listening. I hope that the rest will also be properly cited eventually but Wikipedia has no deadlines. The important thing is that citing Daily Mail is accepted practice in some circumstances. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan and Markbassett: Thanks, have added the primary source archived from the online version of the date in question. Could also add its editorial, don't think that's so controversial. . . dave souza, talk 11:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan, Markbassett, and DeFacto: In progress, couple of setbacks.[31][32] which I've undone with reference to this discussion. Regarding the Sun, both secondary sources discuss this article, cite adds timing and responses from Con and Lab. . . dave souza, talk 06:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Setbacks? I removed refs to deprecated sources which added no value to the article. What is that a setback too? I don't see anything in this discussion excusing their use when they add no further value to the article, as in that case. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Again, I just think WP cannot cover it well without such sources, so I think seek consensus to either cover it with such or don’t cover it at all. Just my opinion that if one is to cover a British scandal, the British scandal sheets simply are the best source for what sensationalism was said and what mud was thrown. Between directness and that they have WP:WEIGHT in circulation, this seems an example of why DEPRECATED explicitly allows citing. But if consensus for here is to not do so, so be it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Especially if reliable sources identify the tabloids as the source of the scandal, then there's no reason not to include those initial sources adjacent to the RSes that mention those being the sources. You can't use the tabloids in isolation, and it doesn't make sense not to provide the reader with the RS link and not a link to the tabloid to see how it initially came out from that source. --Masem (t) 13:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- DeFacto can you point to any policy or guideline to justify your removal of the cites? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan, Markbassett, Bondegezou, and DeFacto: – Bondegezou, having started this discussion, you've now expressed 100% agreement with DeFacto's Obsession with the use of deprecated sources, despite their disregard of the advice given by editors here, and still no pointer to any policy or guideline to justify their removal of the cites. Instead, DeFacto has been edit warring to delete sources, justifying this with the Catch-22 argument of deleting sources if a "deprecated source adds nothing as the sentence is fully supported by the RS" [33] or "no extra value is evident as the RS coverage covers it unambiguously" [34], then where the primary source adds more, demanding "write what they say then, and support it with a reliable source".[35] Completely contrary to the advice here, and looking increasingly tendentious. I'll join the talk page discussion, and consider the best way forward . . dave souza, talk 17:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Update: commented at Obsession with the use of deprecated sources. Also, note diff where DeFacto removed the Daily Mail source discussed above, with the edit summary "that deprecated source adds nothing as the sentence is fully supported by the RS", summarily dismissing the advice given here. . . dave souza, talk 18:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support Dave souza. See also deprecation history and WP:WHYCITE's wording "You also help users find additional information on the subject ..." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Article talk page discussion under way so am hopeful. . . dave souza, talk 17:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support Dave souza. See also deprecation history and WP:WHYCITE's wording "You also help users find additional information on the subject ..." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Here is a list of political topics on which the Daily Mail may be assumed to be offering honest and fact-based commentary, as opposed to naked partisan political activism:
- None omitted. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- A narrowly defined condition, I agree with the statement that the DM is unsuitable as an honest source of commentary, but the question here is if archived copies of the DM and Sun are primary sources which provide context where secondary sources comment on the specific articles, and these primary sources are reliable for the date and time published, also giving the exact wording they used, points which can be misunderstood if taken out of context from a secondary source, which may be less reliable for the specific point. . . dave souza, talk 19:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a massively overblown content issue. Almost all of the material in the article were supported by reliable secondary reporting that included references to the Daily Mail (and Sun) assertions. Since the content is already covered by WP:RSN sources, there is absolutely no need, or even utility, in also including the deprecated sources around. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why are you overblowing it? My aim has been to comply closely with the reliable sources, while cross-checking against the primary sources for date/timing and exact wording of quotes.
I appreciate you've made good faith edits, some of which are helpful, but in this edit you've introduced the mangled falsehood that "The Sun on Sunday published a story on the video on page 2 in its 1 May 2021 of its print edition," implying that The Sun on Sunday publishes in print on Saturday. Clue's in the name. On closer inspection, the Graun consistently says "1 May 2021 The Sun ran a brief story about the footage", with "ran a brief story" a link to the Sun primary source, and in an earlier article the Graun said "The Sun on Sunday picked up on the clip and published a brief article on page 2 of its print edition". Both statements are true, but superficially confusing. Using secondary sources already cited, I've corrected the article, so it's now in line with the primary source. Which provides a useful check when summarising secondary sources about that specific story as published originally in a deprecated [not banned] source. . . dave souza, talk 19:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)- My overblown comment was with respect to this time-wasting exercise at WP:RSN when no deprecated sources were ever needed to back the content. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you're complaining about this discussion happening here, take that up with the editor who brought it to RSN, though I understand that's the recommended procedure. As discussed above, WP:V and WP:WHYCITE's wording "You also help users find additional information on the subject" are among reasons to give access to these as primary sources, instead you're promoting a Catch-22 approach which is clearly not inherent in the WP:RS and WP:RSP guidelines. So, this looks unresolved. . . dave souza, talk 16:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- As mentioned on the page, you seem to be missing the point that many of the secondary sources in any case include links back to the primary ones. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- From a quick check, these are live links, not archived pages, and why would you expect readers to check them out when you didn't even bother when making a muddle of your edit? A proper archived reference gives appropriate access to the primary source, as needed for WP:RS/QUOTE, without in any way giving it more support than partial quotations out of context taken from the secondary source. A live link gives the deprecated source cookie data on readers. . . dave souza, talk 09:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- As mentioned on the page, you seem to be missing the point that many of the secondary sources in any case include links back to the primary ones. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you're complaining about this discussion happening here, take that up with the editor who brought it to RSN, though I understand that's the recommended procedure. As discussed above, WP:V and WP:WHYCITE's wording "You also help users find additional information on the subject" are among reasons to give access to these as primary sources, instead you're promoting a Catch-22 approach which is clearly not inherent in the WP:RS and WP:RSP guidelines. So, this looks unresolved. . . dave souza, talk 16:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- My overblown comment was with respect to this time-wasting exercise at WP:RSN when no deprecated sources were ever needed to back the content. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why are you overblowing it? My aim has been to comply closely with the reliable sources, while cross-checking against the primary sources for date/timing and exact wording of quotes.
muckrack.com
Before I go and wipe out references across 200 articles, I figure I should confirm my suspicion that muckrack.com is not a usable source as it is user-generated.
example - [[36]]
Slywriter (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- "A centralized Public Relations Management (PRM) platform to help your team build media relationships, collaborate from anywhere, and measure success." sounds eminently wipe-able. Per WP-philosophy you should make some effort to replace while wiping, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think that their page for journalists ("Muck Rack provides free tools to help journalists like you automatically compile and showcase your portfolio...") is further evidence that Muck Rack should not be regarded as a suitable source. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I would say it is an WP:ABOUTSELF source in BLPs and a usable primary source for e.g. noting that X journalist has contributed regularly to Y periodical, but I would not use it beyond there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- The verified profiles, yes, a bit like LinkedIn. But there are also unverified profiles and they let people claim profiles through the web. --Seggallion (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Generally unreliable and self-published. Muckrack pages are generally made by a bot, without the journalist's input. It's wholly unreliable for attributing an article to a particular person, and the bot often gets confused when there are multiple non-verified journalists with the same name, leading to some problems given the lack of effective human oversight over the bot queries. It is not ok to use in a WP:BLP (per WP:BLPSPS), unless the particular MuckRack profile is verified and used in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. I personally would not place it as an WP:EL unless it were verified, owing to issues with its quality. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The London Economic interview with Gary Delaney for his article
Could someone please respond to this?
Is this following 2015 interview with standup comedian Gary Delaney at The London Economic (www DOT thelondoneconomic DOT COM /entertainment/tle-meets-gary-delaney-10627/) reliable for biographical information added to Delaney's Wikiepdia article (specifically: where he went to school, his odd jobs before becoming a comedian, and his residence as of 2015)?
That info has already been in his Wikipedia article for some time, but the url is dead, and while there is both a live url and an archived version at the Internet Archive, I can't change it because it's on the blacklist, and I'd like to add it as an exception, if possible, to the whitelist. I couldn't even include the url in this post for the same reason, so I had to write out portions of the url in order to convey it here. Nightscream (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello? Nightscream (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nightscream see MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. As long as you believe it is reliable, you can make a case for whitelisting it. I'd say interviews with the person in question are generally accurate. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 04:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Are the sources in 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers enough to establish it was a terrorist attack by a left-winger?
The background it at Talk:Terrorism in the United States where a new editor believes argues that the sources are sufficient. It's been added to Timeline of terrorist attacks in the United States. The argument in part hinges on whether this source[37] used in Terrorism in the United States establishes it as terrorism. It looks like a reliable source and has compiled it own database, but it says "only two incidents of domestic terrorism in the database can plausibly be attributed to a perpetrator with such sympathies. They are the December 2014 killings of two police officers in their patrol car in New York City and the July 2016 sniper shooting in Dallas, which left five officers dead and nine wounded." Note the word "plausibly".
The government database[38] also used in the Terrorism article does not include either of these, and at the moment that article says there were no instances of left-wing terrorism during the time period covers and also that there were 7 deaths.
The Dallas shooting article does not mention terrorism anywhere except the infobox which is sourced to [39] which I don't think backs the claim, [40] which doesn't seem to either, and [41] which does although I don't think the statement that the perpetrator was left-wing is established (this is from my reading of the article). Doug Weller talk 18:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll note that per Betteridge's law of headlines, the latter two sources indicate it's not domestic terrorism. On a quick glance, this seems like a case where the mainstream view (in particular, the GAO) is that it was a targeted mass shooting rather than domestic terrorism, though there are notable claims that it was terrorism which should be attributed to their source rather than wikivoiced. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing I can see that labels the Dallas shooter as "left-wing". Only that his motives were ambiguous, and one author pointing to the "plausibility" as you said, which is not enough, in my opinion, to call them "left-wing" terrorist. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed with pretty much all of this; the first source, if anything, undercuts the claim. The second source, a lawyer's blog, does not seem reliable to me, but does not support the claim. The CNN op-ed does support the claim, but seems to be a bit of an outlier. Even its authors hedge their bets by saying "seemingly motivated." That claim could be used with attribution but is absolutely not enough, by my lights, to state it as an uncontroverted fact in Wiki voice. Cheers all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Previous consensus in mass shooting articles is that the motive should come from the investigators, not media reports, politicians' speeches etc. The media has got it wrong in the past by jumping to conclusions. It's hard to dispute that Micah Xavier Johnson was some sort of crackpot with a grudge against the police, but the government does not appear to have classified the incident as left wing terrorism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I consider Neiwert an expert and a reliable source when it comes to eliminationism and right-wing attacks on the left. He is a well-published journalist who often freelances and has maintained several personal websites over time. As the OP points out in their quote, Neiwert's usage of the word "plausibly" seems intended to narrow outliers of his central thesis, not to explicitly label those outliers. I feel Neiwert is a openly left-wing, but certainly an authentic journalist with a long track record of publication. BusterD (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- We really only should describe attacks as "terrorism" when this is a assessment by the law authorities overseeing the case investigation, since in most countries this is an "enhanced" crime that comes with additional penalties. Attacks can be said to be "suspected terrorism" from other expert sources (including newspapers) but that's prior to an official assessment. We're far to quick to jump to when newspapers and other people not in an authority position use "terrorism" inappropriately. --Masem (t) 18:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- During the overnight standoff that led to his death, the suspect told a hostage negotiator that he was upset about the recent police shootings of two black men and that he wanted to kill white people, especially police officers, Dallas Police Chief David Brown said at a news conference this morning.[42] Terrorism is generally understood to be acts of violence conducted against civilians for political purposes. Killing white police officers who are guarding a peaceful demonstration certainly qualifies as terrorism, in the same way that Roof's attack on black churchgoers does.[43]. Johnson liked on Facebook the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), the Nation of Islam and the Black Riders Liberation Party, all listed by the SPLC as hate groups. [44]
- What more evidence do we need to confirm the connection here? Yamazon3 (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is called original research, we only summarize what reliable sources say and so far, reliable sources do not say that this is an act of terrorism much less an act of left wing terrorism. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reliable sources DO say that this is an act of terrorism, see this source: "Terrorism is generally understood to be acts of violence conducted against civilians for political purposes. Killing white police officers who are guarding a peaceful demonstration certainly qualifies as terrorism, in the same way that Roof's attack on black churchgoers does[45]".
- I may be misunderstanding what original research is, and I apologize if that's the case, but it was my understanding that if someone says that a person has 2 quarters in their pocket, then it's acceptable to write that they have at least 50 cents in change in their pocket. Yamazon3 (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- it is not widely reported as terrorism or a left wing terrorist attack, the CNN article is also an opinion piece which can be attributed but cannot be used as a statement of fact. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- While we can of course rephrase statements (in part to avoid plagiarism, in part to be NPOV), making the jump from 'reliable sources don't use a particular label for an event, but we decided it fits the definition' is textbook WP:OR. That said, I'm confused how you equate 'killing police officers on duty' with 'violence against civilians'. Even by the definition you provided, this shooting wouldn't qualify because government officials engaging in official business arenot civilians. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Bakkster Man Good point! The source from GAO used in the header of the article[46] cites at least 8 fatal right wing attacks against police officers. Given that you're saying that attacks against police officers don't count, the claims regarding terrorist counts from them should not be considered valid. How should we edit the header of the Terrorism in the United States to remove the GAO counts? Yamazon3 (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Given that you're saying that attacks against police officers don't count
. No, I said that according tothe definition you provided
, your argument was inconsistent.- Saying that because your personal definition of "terrorism" is different from the GAO's definition of "violent extremism" we should consider that authoritative source to be unreliable is more WP:OR. I suspect even worse, because it appears to be bad-faith and/or WP:POINTy. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Bakkster Man Good point! The source from GAO used in the header of the article[46] cites at least 8 fatal right wing attacks against police officers. Given that you're saying that attacks against police officers don't count, the claims regarding terrorist counts from them should not be considered valid. How should we edit the header of the Terrorism in the United States to remove the GAO counts? Yamazon3 (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are indeed misunderstanding what original research is, and your example misrepresents the argument. Substituting "at least 50 cents" for "2 quarters" is paraphrasing (assuming there is no further import to the fact of 2 quarters), but what you are doing is taking "2 quarters" from one source, relative measures of poverty from another source, and synthesising an assertion that the person is poor, when the reliable source doesn't actually state that.
- For Wikipedia to call an act terrorism it must be adjudicated as such in some legalistic manner; a journalist's opinion is not sufficient to transcribe into Wikivoice. Such opinion might be sufficiently notable to be reported as such however. Captainllama (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is called original research, we only summarize what reliable sources say and so far, reliable sources do not say that this is an act of terrorism much less an act of left wing terrorism. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I forgot to add that the lead and and the first section of the body at Terrorism in the United States contradict each other and I’m not sure how to fix it. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do you mean the first paragraph of the lead contradicts the second paragraph, or what is the contradiction you're referring to? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- The third paragraph of the lead in Terrorism in the United States makes the claim that all fatal terrorist attacks between 9/12/01 - 12/31/16 were attributed to either right wing or Islamic terror. After making that claim, it then states that no fatal terror attacks were attributed to left wing terrorism. These claims come directly from GAO. The first section in the body of the article claims that 7 deaths were caused by left wing terrorism between 2008-2016. Yamazon3 (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry. The last sentence in the third paragraph of the lead is contradicting the start of the U.S. totals section Terrorism in the United States#U.S. totals. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just rewrote the last sentence in paragraph 3 of the lead to
Deaths attributed to left-wing groups were rare.
Better? The citations following may need to be added/removed, though. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)- @Pyrrho the Skipper Yes. Thank you! Yamazon3 (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- We can say that one report said none, another plausibly 7, but the table is a problem. Doug Weller talk 21:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Pyrrho the Skipper we can't say "rare" when the citation quotes the source as saying " According to the [US Extremist Crime Database], activities of far left wing violent extremist groups did not result in any fatalities during this period." I've rewritten the lead to include both statements and added the "plausibly" caveat to the U.S. totals section - that definitely should have been there in the first place. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah. @Masem@BusterD@Praxidicae@Dumuzid and probably others, going over this thread again I'm not clear as to whether we include the 7 deaths with the caveat or? And should we remove the mention of terrorism in the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers infobox or call it terrorism because that one report says it is? I'm at a bit of a loss here. It's in the mass shooting category at the moment. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- So, for me, this is indeed where I would come down. On Terrorism in the United States, I think I would keep the "no deaths attributed to left wing groups language" but perhaps append "by this report" or some such simply to make it very clear that we have contrasting sources. (I confess, I am not sure what the issue was with one of the tables?) As to Dallas, I would vote to remove terrorism. One CNN op-ed does not for me establish the link. "Mass shooting" is obviously fine. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. I hope everyone has a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah. @Masem@BusterD@Praxidicae@Dumuzid and probably others, going over this thread again I'm not clear as to whether we include the 7 deaths with the caveat or? And should we remove the mention of terrorism in the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers infobox or call it terrorism because that one report says it is? I'm at a bit of a loss here. It's in the mass shooting category at the moment. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Pyrrho the Skipper we can't say "rare" when the citation quotes the source as saying " According to the [US Extremist Crime Database], activities of far left wing violent extremist groups did not result in any fatalities during this period." I've rewritten the lead to include both statements and added the "plausibly" caveat to the U.S. totals section - that definitely should have been there in the first place. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just rewrote the last sentence in paragraph 3 of the lead to
TOI and India Today
I have read some article talk page discussions, some users are saying they are pro-government.
TOI recently became unreliable but their pre-2020 articles are mostly reliable and pre-2014 are fully reliable.
India Today's TV channel India Today is completely useless and also Hindi Aaj Tak is very bad, but their original magazine whose articles are online since 1975 is reliable for politics, crime, religion.
Even though the magazine and TV channel share the same website and name, but their content is not always the same.
As TimesofIndia is different than Times Now
Nabbharattimes Hindi newspaper is different than Hindi news channel Times Now Nabhbharat.
All of them started as reliable print media, but due to the decline of offline newspaper, and magazine sales, they started their news channel to earn money.
India Today printed magazine should be used as a reliable source. Ivan Tsar (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
climate-data.org is not a reliable source
The website lists weather data from almost all parts of the world, but it is very different from the weather data released by many official agencies. Taking the Japanese city of Hachinohe as an example, the temperature difference between the data released by climate-data.org and Japan Meteorological Agency exceeds 3 degrees Celsius, and the difference in precipitation exceeds 200 mm. In addition, a similar problem can be found in the French city of Ajaccio. Compared with the value released by climate-data.org and Météo-France, the gap is too large. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Charles W Henderson, Marine Sniper: 93 confirmed kills (and fictionalised history books in general)
Marine Sniper: 93 confirmed kills by Charles W. Henderson is billed as the true story of Carlos Hathcock, a prolific sniper in the Vietnam war. Its prose is novelistic and the scenes are described in detail as if the writer was describing a events they had personally witnessed. The author recognises in their introduction that some dialogue involving Vietnamese characters is invented by the author, but does not make the same caveat for dialogue between Americans, which seems unlikely to be true. No sources are mentioned, except the author's own interviews with American service personnel, which I have no doubt actually did happen, and claims that American military records were consulted. The records are not cited, so can not be verified.
In my view this can't be considered a reliable source for historical events, perhaps not even for the views of the interviewees, given the degree of fictionalisation. But I'd be interested to see what others think.
This leads to a broader question of how far should we trust memoirs, or histories based on interviews, which are presented novelistically?
Boynamedsue (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- He is a historian, and so in that respect is an RS. but it can also be argued that he might only be an RS for what he claims (thus attribution). Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Neither Marine Sniper nor Henderson himself should be considered reliable sources in any way. The book itself is a novelization, which is an instant fail as a source. Sure, it's supposedly based on interviews and records, but I don't believe for a second that the play-by-play action sequences or dialogue are anything but invented. Perhaps some of the larger plot elements were sourced, but how do we know what to believe? That's why we trust actual historians, not novelists. And I see nothing indicating that Henderson is a historian, no education, no training, no experience. I also can't find any record of reliable sources treating Marine Sniper or any of Henderson's other novels as reputable sources. Woodroar (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't see any evidence that he is a historian. Some of what he does follows the historical method (interviews with participants, archive research), but the complete lack of referencing, and the text which is effectively a novel, as well as admitting to inventing dialogue does not. He also makes no attempt to critically evaluate what Hathcock or other vets are telling him. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Henderson's own about page on his website talks extensively about his training and the professional organisations of which he is a member, but it does not mention any historical training. His most relevant qualifications appear to be university-level courses (apparently not degrees) in photojournalism and philosophy (his BA is in animal sciences, which is of limited use to the professional historian!), and experience as a freelance journalist. The preface admits that parts of the book have been invented, and though the cover describes the book as a "true story" and the forward describes the book (except the bits which the author admits inventing) as "factually accurate to the best of my ability", the 2001 reprint is published by Berkley, an imprint of Penguin which specialises in "commercial and genre fiction". I can't see any compelling reason to treat this as a reliable source. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
"World's largest organic vitamin company"
Is this edit acceptable? The source is The Brattleboro Reformer. The author is a staff writer. The source asserts in the first paragraph it is the world's largest organic vitamin company after the conclusion of a merger with a South Korean company. The Wiki article attributes it as an assertion. -- GreenC 19:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. Especially since it's attributed. Is someone arguing against the inclusion? What reasoning are they using? SilverserenC 20:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article is entirely based on a company announcement. The journalist wrote the following sentence to introduce the article: Over the clinking of champagne glasses, members of New Chapter, the world's largest organic vitamin company, toasted an agreement with executives from Dawsang, a $2 billion South Korean food company that shares the vision of promoting whole and fermented ingredients'. The agreement does not appear to have been significant and does not appear in any other newspapers. It doesn't even appear on New Chapter's website at any time.
- GreenC is arguing at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Chapter AfD for New Chapter that the snippet contained in the above sentence which described the company as "the world's largest organic vitamin company" must be accepted as fact - and therefore evidence that the company is notable - because it is attributed to a journalist and published in a reliable source.
- I pointed out to GreenC that the company's own website in 2007, the date of the article, describe themselves as a small company owned by family and friends.
- GreenC argues "No where does the company itself say they are the largest. It is the conclusion and assertion by an independent journalist. The journalist did their own original research, which is what good independent journalists do".
- The idea that the journalist "did their own research" and calculated that this company is the largest in the world is not only absurd given the context of the overall article which is a repeat of a company announcement full of quotes, etc, but it is also an Exception Claim. If it were true, I have no doubt the claim would have been repeated at some stage - it hasn't.
- To be clear, it could appear to others based on how the dispute has been presented here that someone was objecting to the inclusion of the description of "world's biggest company" in the body of the article. That is not the case. The real argument at the AfD from GreenC is that this 5 word snippet meets WP:ORGIND as it is evidence of "Independent Content" original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I say it isn't. I also say it falls well short of meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 20:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like you're trying to push your own opinion over what the reliable sources say. When your opinion is meaningless. The source is reliable and the statement is directly attributed in the article. You don't seem to be presenting any actual argument against the source, just that you disagree with what it claims. And, I restate, your opinion is meaningless. And the source does appear to be an independent source. Plenty of articles have flowery openings like that. In fact, that's a better representation of it being independent, since you see active journalist articles worded like that in sources such as The New Yorker, which is what this news article seems to be evoking with its style. SilverserenC 20:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Now make your argument with reference to WP:EXCEPTIONAL which has nothing to do with my opinion. HighKing++ 11:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that single source is enough per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. ––FormalDude talk 22:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- The question presented here was whether the source is reliable and okay for including the statement. It is on both counts. This is not a discussion about notability, this is the reliable source noticeboard. SilverserenC 22:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about notability–WP:EXCEPTIONAL is an important part of our verifiability policy. It makes this statement a red flag for inclusion with only one source and nothing else verifying it. ––FormalDude talk 22:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Additionally the edit doesn't match the source. The edit claims that the deal with Dawsang made them the world's largest organic vitamin company, whereas the source says they're the world's largest organic vitamin company, which is independent of the Dawsang deal. Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
CinemaCrush
Can cinemacrush.com be considered a reliable source for film credits, cast and crew, release dates, etc? I was not able to get any information about the website, their history or the team. A domain search shows the website was registered in 2018 and will expire next week. At the bottom of the page it says Date Source: TMDb
. I don't know what Date Source means, but TMDb, like IMDb, is crowd-sourced.
The website is used as a source at Manan Joshi and Mozhgan Bayat. Jay (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like yet another obscure website on the net trying to serve a [large] niche audience. Probably retrieved content via API or web scraping. For sourcing on WP, I'd say no — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Crikey on Tim Wilson (Australian politician)
I am Tim Wilson (Australian politician). The current Wikipedia page about me relies heavily on citations to Crikey[47][48][49][50] for its negative lean. For example, one cited Crikey article says "Look up there in the sky! It’s Freedom Boy, Tim Wilson! Stuffing up again!".[51] Crikey recently wrote an article titled "‘TimWilsonMP’ banned from editing Wikipedia after trying to get rid of negative news about the MP".
A prior RSN discussion leans towards Crikey being generally reliable. However, my concern is that the publication accepts opinion and commentary pieces without (as far as I can tell) clearly labeling which articles are opinion. WP:BLP seems to encourage being especially cautious and using only the best sources when it comes to contentious material about a living person. These articles generally look more like opinion columns than news/journalism. Pinging new user @BeReasonabl:, who suggested I bring the issue here.
It's worth mentioning for context that the media has exposed my political opponents for manipulating the Wikipedia page about me and other members of my political party in order to attack the opposition.[52]. Therefore, I do not know which editors are legitimate, and which are organised political opponents.TimWilsonMP (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Tim, can you be a little more specific? Is there something in particular you are objecting to? As you said, a previous RSN leans towards Crikey being reliable, generally. You point out that the publisher accepts opinion and commentary pieces without clearly labeling them as such - but you haven't provided any evidence that this is so. The articles have all been attributed to journalists so we have nothing to support what you've said. If you are concerned that the article is not written in a neutral and balanced manner, that should be addressed either on the Talk page or you could take it to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Remember that Wikipedia relies on consensus and for biographies about living persons, a neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research must be strictly observed. HighKing++ 12:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- TimWilsonMP - I think you are asking for RSN to reevaluate Crikey for (a) sensationalist language and (b) not clearly labelling opinion and commentary pieces as such. Please provide evidence of some specific cites for consideration. Any possible (c) manipulation suspicions should go to NPOVN. I will take it on myself to remove the article content about wikipedia account validation as simply trivia and WP:UNDUE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I believe these articles are more like Column (periodical): "What differentiates a column from other forms of journalism is that it is a regular feature in a publication – written by the same writer or reporter and usually on the same subject area or theme each time – and that it typically, but not universally, contains the author's opinion or point of view. A column states an opinion." Wikipedia's definition of a column is that it is usually written by a journalist and is usually also opinion.
-
- My points are:
- Wikipedia editors themselves can verify at least one instance where the publication made contentious comments about a BLP without fact-checking, because Crikey claimed I was banned from Wikipedia,[53] which we know isn't true.
- The content of the articles themselves are filled with sarcasm and name-calling that is more typical of opinion than news-reporting
- Crikey is generally known to have a strong political bias
- The media has reported that political opponent Zoe Daniel added a lot of negative content to the page through user:Playlet (presumably some of the other accounts as well)
- It's a serious issue, as the content of the page - added covertly by my political opponent - is affecting my job prospects post-election. TimWilsonMP (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do not want Wikipedia to re-assess Crikey as a reliable source and agree the articles in question are written by journalists. The cited Crikey pieces are columns. According to Wikipedia, columns are written by journalists and “typically, but not universally, contains the author’s opinion or point of view.” I merely want Wikipedia to reject opinion content as citations for contentious content about a BLP.
- My points are:
-
- For example, if you go to Crikey’s main page, articles listed under “Opinion” and “Our Columnists” should not be reliable, because they are opinion content. Unfortunately, opinion content that is not on the main page is not clearly labeled. However, I think the content of the articles themselves (please go read a couple) strongly infers they are opinion columns.
-
- Crikey is known for having a strong political bias, the media has reported that my political opponent covertly added negative content to the page (through user Playlet, but presumably other accounts as well), and we know of at least one instance where the cited opinion pieces were not reliable[54] (claiming I was banned from Wikipedia). This is additional context. TimWilsonMP (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- That link does not say "Crikey is known for having a strong political bias". It says Crikey has a left bias, but ranks HIGH for factual reporting. Given the mostly right wing state of the Australian media landscape, and the fact that Media Bias Fact Check is based in a generally more right wing landscape itself, this is hardly a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Crikey is known for having a strong political bias, the media has reported that my political opponent covertly added negative content to the page (through user Playlet, but presumably other accounts as well), and we know of at least one instance where the cited opinion pieces were not reliable[54] (claiming I was banned from Wikipedia). This is additional context. TimWilsonMP (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Searching for a Gem (www.searchingforagem.com)
I think that searchingforagem.com is a reliable source for Bob Dylan's discography and related topics (e.g. Dylan video releases, Travelling Wilburys discography).
In his 2021 book The Double Life of Bob Dylan Vol. 1: A Restless Hungry Feeling: 1941-1966, Clinton Heylin includes Bob Dylan Worldwide: The First Twenty Years : an Anthology of Original LPs, Singles & EP Releases 1961-1981 by Christoph Maus with Alan Fraser, a book based on content from the site, under "reference resources". The site's compiler, Alan Fraser, has his own entry in Michael Gray's The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia. From the 2008 edition (p.244): "Fraser ... has provided information to Columbia Records and various Dylan fanzines, but his major contribution is the website searchingforagem.com: a huge, painstaking and scrupulous documenting, in mind-boggling detail, of officially-released Dylan rarities and more". Gray goes on to describe the site as "excellent and lavishly illustrated".
Any views? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the biographer has cited it, I agree this constitutes reliability. --K. Peake 06:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I've just discovered that Record Collector magazine referred to searchingforagem.com as "the internet's number one resource for rare Dylan releases" in February 2008. (source). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Citing to strugglingteens.com regarding troubled teen industry programs
Hi there, I would like to get information on if it is okay to cite strugglingteens.com on troubled teen industry program Wikipedia pages such as Elevations RTC.
This site has an about page describing the below. What this page includes are news articles written by parents, students, and industry professionals about troubled teen programs and press releases. Users have been citing to and using as sources these press releases and articles to account for historical information about troubled teen programs. The articles are a GREAT source of information about the backgrounds of these programs and this type of information cannot be found elsewhere. I understand that self-published sources are not always reliable but in this context, these articles serve as a paper trail with again, very important information about the programs.
For example, https://strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5202.shtml, this article has historical information about the Oakley School and the Island View RTC program that could be used in both schools articles. There are several other articles from the website that have been deleted by a particular user mentioned below.
The user (talk) is going to every troubled teen program and deleting all information that links back to this website and a few other similar industry websites, and I believe their doing so is not beneficial to the Wikipedia pages and the sources of information being used.
Can anyone provide their thoughts?
ABOUT PAGE:
In 1995, StrugglingTeens.com went online as the original website for information about the many schools and programs available for troubled teens. The news and articles listed within this site provide an invaluable resource for both parents and professionals, as well as anyone interested in helping troubled teens find successful paths to adulthood.
With a combination of training and 20+ years of experience, our educational consultants provide balanced news, information, and provide professional help for parents of struggling and troubled teens helping families find programs, services and schools for teens and at risk youth.
Farr4h2004 (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- That website is so badly maintained, it cannot even direct readers to a consistant home page. They seem to be web illiterate, with unfinished pages everywhere. I cannot figure out if it is an "attack" page, against this rather dubious industry, or a genuine attempt to help parents. I haven't found any editorial policy statements amidst the collection of anecdotes, and I suggest that it is unreliable for anything at all. I may be being slightly harsh, and look forward to others comments. We do need far better sources imho, but this isn't it. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 03:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- You're being harsh. The actual articles that are being cited to in the wikipedia articles are very well written and provide straight forward historical information, again creating a very well-documented online paper trail for these schools. It would be a misfortune NOT to be able to cite to these histories. They are part and parcel of the troubled teen industry and the many schools that they discuss.
- I can provide specific articles but another user has been going around deleting them so it is a bit difficult but I will do so any way. Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- For example, here are some sources that are cited to.
- The first is discussing executive changes that are historical to the program Island View now known as Elevations RTC. https://strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/IslandViewFutureBN_081215.shtml
- Here's one written by Jared Balmer himself discussing what the Viewpoint Center is, which is on the campus with Elevations RTC. https://web.archive.org/web/20220224084015/https:/strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5561.shtml
- Here's a documented visit report to another program called West Ridge Academy, which gives in depth details about the program and the campus. This is important historical information. The only other place you would find this would be probably on the program's website itself. But adding these types of sources creates a balance article. It also again provides historical information as a program can update its website at any time, which they often do. Thus, these articles provide a paused moment in time that can be a resource.
- https://strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5382.shtml Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also want to point out that these articles are being used on a case to case basis and are being used alongside other sources. So they are being use where applicable and where they add value. I don't think there should be some outright ban on citing to articles on strugglingteens.com. There is even a wikipedia cite format for press releases and the like, so this is not out of the ordinary.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_press_release Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Aside from the comments I made above, that proposed spource is WP:BIASED. Unfortunately, it isn't clear which way it is biased, because of the aforementioned lack of competence of the people maintaining the site. Remember that Anecdote does not equal Evidence, and all we have there is anecdotal. I dont trust incompetent strangers on the internetz. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sources can be biased though, especially here in that they offer information about different viewpoints on the school - from parents, educational consultants, industry people, and students. See here:
- Biased or opinionated sources[edit source]
- Shortcuts
- WP:BIASED
- WP:PARTISAN
- WP:BIASEDSOURCES
- See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Bias in sources
- Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
- Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".
- Also, I think the press release articles would be sources about themselves, which is also allowed per the below. Thoughts?
- Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves[edit source]
- Shortcut
- WP:SELFSOURCE
- See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves
- Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:
- The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
- It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
- It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
- There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
- The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.
- These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources. Farr4h2004 (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I definitely don't think a blanket deletion of a press release featured on industry websites is necessary. Farr4h2004 (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Aside from the comments I made above, that proposed spource is WP:BIASED. Unfortunately, it isn't clear which way it is biased, because of the aforementioned lack of competence of the people maintaining the site. Remember that Anecdote does not equal Evidence, and all we have there is anecdotal. I dont trust incompetent strangers on the internetz. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The articles are not useable. The site is equivalent to a blog with no indication the writers are qualified to give their opinion of the programs nor any indication of editorial control that articles are fact-checked.
- The press releases can be used in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF which provides limited usage of press releases and other company produced information. A more reliable source publishing would be better, but the website could qualify as best source available for them.Slywriter (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I thought press releases could be used but could not find the policy so that is helpful. As for the articles, they include the author's name, which is usually a person affiliated with the industry, so they can definitely be verified. They aren't random people commenting behind aliases on the internet.
- @SkidMountTubularFrame please see above on press releases. Farr4h2004 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Chetna Manch and Rajtantra TV reliablity
rajtantrtv.com and chetnamanch.com both are used on Samrat Prithviraj an article. Are they relalible sources to be used there. Shanusar (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Shanusar are Chetna Manch and Rajtantra TV connected to each other? I believe they are not connected, so they should be discussed in different threads. And a decision should reach according to their own merits. Please create 2 threads. Venkat TL (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Chetnamanch.com
- "Prithviraj Chauhan: राजपूत नहीं थे पृथ्वीराज चौहान? दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट से गुर्जर समाज के पक्ष में आया फैसला". चेतना मंच. 1 June 2022. Retrieved 4 June 2022.
Used on Samrat Prithviraj ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chetnamanch a news site, has been used on film article Samrat Prithviraj#Litigations Permanent link to discuss the court litigation about the film. Another source livelaw [1] has also covered the same incident but its coverage is not detailed. Chetnamanch article provides a detailed background and also gives much more details on the court litigation hence it was added in the article. User:Shanusar had inappropriately removed it calling it unreliable. Please help to decide if this can be used as a reliable source to discuss the court litigation or not.
References
- ^ NETWORK, LIVELAW NEWS (1 June 2022). ""Samrat Prithviraj" Film Is Caste Neutral, Does Not Depict King As Rajput Or Gurjar: Yash Raj Films Tells Delhi High Court". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 4 June 2022.
Venkat TL (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Chetna manch is misguiding here as court has not given any verdict but the headline say that court gave its verdict. Court dismissed the petition. Here is anohter source for that. [1] the Chetna manch is owned by gujjars. [2] Shanusar (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Shanusar , How did you conclude that Chetna is owned by Gujjars, your link from twitter does not make any such claims about Chetna. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because The editor has history of being in their favour. I have provided the link for that. A news portal whose editor is caste biased can not be considered reliable.Shanusar (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- He is a journalist, He is only naming the caste involved in the news incident being reported. Where is the evidence that he is baised? again stop making unsubstantiated allegations about living persons. Please see WP:BLP I dont know which caste he is and it is not appropriate for me to make guess/assumption about his caste without any evidence. Venkat TL (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because The editor has history of being in their favour. I have provided the link for that. A news portal whose editor is caste biased can not be considered reliable.Shanusar (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Shanusar , How did you conclude that Chetna is owned by Gujjars, your link from twitter does not make any such claims about Chetna. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- See below quote from livelaw,
“ |
|
” |
- The petitioners went to court to protest that the movie was not about Rajput, The court case confirmed this which is why the petion was not pressed further and disposed off. The court also noted that the statement of respondent legally binds them. which is obviously part of the verdict and not just some oral statement. Venkat TL (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Chetna manch headline says that court gave its vedicts in favour of Gujjar community that what "faisla" means. Whereas court never gave its verdict that Prithvi raj was not a Rajput king in fact the petition was dismissed as I have already provided link for that. Can you provide or did the Chetna manch provided court vedict for that.?? The headline is misleading.Shanusar (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wkipedia page where it is used, does not say that the verdict was in favour of anyone. The petition was not dismissed due to lack of merits. It was dimissed as the petitioners were satisfied with the response from the respondents and decided not to pursue as their concern was resolved. It is not entirely wrong. Please point any fact in the wikipedia article that is wrongly portrayed by Chetna article. Ownership gujjar or otherwise does not make Chetna not reliable. Venkat TL (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- we are not talking about what wiki page said. We are talking about reliability of the source. which if is misguiding can not be reliable. The headline it self is misguiding as it says court said "Prithviraj was not rajput and court verdicts in favour of gujjar community". When there was no verdict at all. The movie makers clarified that they have not shown any caste but court didn't gave any verdict.
- ownership of Chetna manch matters as it is owned by a person of their own community that is why the headline is written in misguiding way. Shanusar (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please read the quote from the court I copied above in my 3rd reply. You have still not provided any evidence on " owned by a person of their own community" yet you continue to make unsubtantiated assertions about its ownership. Venkat TL (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can you provide me court order where court had said that he was not rajput. The petition was on film not on Prithvi Raj Chauhan. When the headline is so twisted that misguide the reader it can not be reliable. This editor clearly favors a particular community as I have given link for that. Definitely not a neutral media. hence it can not be reliable. Shanusar (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- You have made multiple unsubstantiated claims about living person, Please stop. Venkat TL (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sir, Can you provide copy or link for copy of court verdict which can be matched by the Chetna manch headline. Rest are other topic.
- I am providing more source that gujjar pettion was dismissed and court did not give any verdict [1][2]. Now I am asking can you provide copy or link for copy of court verdict which can be matched by the Chetna manch headline. Shanusar (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- You have made multiple unsubstantiated claims about living person, Please stop. Venkat TL (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can you provide me court order where court had said that he was not rajput. The petition was on film not on Prithvi Raj Chauhan. When the headline is so twisted that misguide the reader it can not be reliable. This editor clearly favors a particular community as I have given link for that. Definitely not a neutral media. hence it can not be reliable. Shanusar (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please read the quote from the court I copied above in my 3rd reply. You have still not provided any evidence on " owned by a person of their own community" yet you continue to make unsubtantiated assertions about its ownership. Venkat TL (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wkipedia page where it is used, does not say that the verdict was in favour of anyone. The petition was not dismissed due to lack of merits. It was dimissed as the petitioners were satisfied with the response from the respondents and decided not to pursue as their concern was resolved. It is not entirely wrong. Please point any fact in the wikipedia article that is wrongly portrayed by Chetna article. Ownership gujjar or otherwise does not make Chetna not reliable. Venkat TL (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Chetna manch headline says that court gave its vedicts in favour of Gujjar community that what "faisla" means. Whereas court never gave its verdict that Prithvi raj was not a Rajput king in fact the petition was dismissed as I have already provided link for that. Can you provide or did the Chetna manch provided court vedict for that.?? The headline is misleading.Shanusar (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Shanusar (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC) Venkat TL please stop posting warning for block and other things on my page. You can say everything here. Shanusar (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, this source looks anything but reliable, it seems to me that this is some blog kind of new sites, there has been rise in number of such blog news websites in india. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Chetnamanch did an analysis-like article stating "दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट में “गुर्जर समाज सर्व संघठन सभा एकता समन्वय समिति” की हालिया याचिका पर सुनवाई में गुर्जर समाज के द्वारा दिये गए तथ्यों को हाईकोर्ट ने सही माना फैसला गुर्जर समाज के पक्ष में गया, गुर्जर समाज ने इस जीत को ऐतेहासिक व नीतिगत जीत बताया है।" (transl. In the hearing of the recent petition of "Gurjar Samaj Sarva Sanghatana Sabha Ekta Coordination Committee" in Delhi High Court, the High Court accepted the facts given by the Gurjar society as correct, the decision went in favor of the Gurjar society, the Gurjar society declared this victory as a historical and policy victory.) - Here I see "High Court accepted the facts given by the Gurjar society as correct" is factually incorrect - in fact [reading from sources], the petition was simply dismissed after the petitioners said their grievances are resolved after the clarification from the film producers that the film is caste-neutral. Just like Rajtantrtv below, Chetnamanch also published false info/analysis (=fake news), just like Rajtantrtv. I'd say that we do not use it for sourcing on the movie's page [and perhaps also on Prithviraj Chauhan-related pages broadly construed]. It's unreliable in this context. It would be useful if Hindi-speaking editors provide more evidence of such fabrications by Rajtantrtv, if exists, to make an assessment on the site-wide reliability — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Delhi HC Dismisses Petition Claiming King Was Gujjar Not Rajput As Portrayed in Movie "Prithviraj"". Law Insider India. 2022-06-01. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
- ^ https://www.news9live.com/india/delhi-hc-dismisses-petition-akshay-kumar-samrat-prithviraj-movie-king-rajput-gurjar-173750
Rajtantrtv.com
http://rajtantrtv.com/6122/ - दिल्ली कोर्ट ने गुजर समाज को लगाई फटकार , नहीं बताया जाएगा पृथ्वीराज चौहान को गुजर करणी सेना के अनुसार होगा पृथ्वीराज चौहान फिल्म का टाइटल
Samrat Prithviraj ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rajtantrtv.com link has been added on Samrat Prithviraj in the litigation section, this edit without adding any additional text that rajtantrtv supports violating WP:OVERCITE.
Rajtantrtv.com says in the headline that the court admonished the petitioner and said that the title of the film will be Samrat. This is factually wrong. The Delhi High court did not admonish anyone. And the title of the film was not even discussed in the Delhi case. Yet Rajtrantrtv makes misleading claims in its headline.
So I believe Rajtrantratv is not following the criteria of WP:RS and should not be added into the article. The other editor disagrees and this is a dispute. Please help to decide if Rajtantratv can be considered a reliable source for this article. Venkat TL (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well Rajantntra tv said that title was changed , it did not said that it was done by court order, and the petition was dismissed which is admonished in a way. [1] Shanusar (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Headline says दिल्ली कोर्ट ने गुजर समाज को लगाई फटकार, नहीं बताया जाएगा पृथ्वीराज चौहान को गुजर करणी सेना के अनुसार होगा पृथ्वीराज चौहान फिल्म का टाइटल. The translation of which is "Delhi court reprimanded Gujar society, Prithviraj Chauhan will not be told as a Gurjar the title of Prithviraj Chauhan film will be according to Karni Sena". So clearly this is a misleading and fake news site because the title was not even discussed in the court. Rajantntra tv is not a reliable site. Venkat TL (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes the title of film was changed due to karni sena is fact and this is already added on the concerned page. [2] Shanusar (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Shanusar, Please provide another source to verify the false claim (fake news) that "Delhi court reprimanded Gujar society", Also provide a source that says " the Delhi high court said anything that gave a hint that the title of Prithviraj Chauhan film will be according to Karni Sena". Both are false statements and misleading the reader. Venkat TL (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes the title of film was changed due to karni sena is fact and this is already added on the concerned page. [2] Shanusar (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Headline says दिल्ली कोर्ट ने गुजर समाज को लगाई फटकार, नहीं बताया जाएगा पृथ्वीराज चौहान को गुजर करणी सेना के अनुसार होगा पृथ्वीराज चौहान फिल्म का टाइटल. The translation of which is "Delhi court reprimanded Gujar society, Prithviraj Chauhan will not be told as a Gurjar the title of Prithviraj Chauhan film will be according to Karni Sena". So clearly this is a misleading and fake news site because the title was not even discussed in the court. Rajantntra tv is not a reliable site. Venkat TL (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Team, WION Web (2022-05-28). "Akshay Kumar's film 'Prithviraj' title changed after Karni Sena's complaint - Entertainment News". WION. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
- ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/-akshay-kumar-s-prithviraj-is-now-samrat-prithviraj-1955040-2022-05-27
- ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/-akshay-kumar-s-prithviraj-is-now-samrat-prithviraj-1955040-2022-05-27
References
- ^ "Delhi HC Dismisses Petition Claiming King Was Gujjar Not Rajput As Portrayed in Movie "Prithviraj"". Law Insider India. 2022-06-01. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
Shanusar you are yet to reply, why you have added rajtantra TV link? Normally a reference is added to support the content the user adds. You did not add any new text and simply adding this link, when existing sources already support the wikipedia text. What is your purpose of adding this link? --Venkat TL (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Apart from the title, the article also has one sentence that reads "इधर गुजर समाज में दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट में याचिका दाखिल करते हुए गुजर दिखाने की मांग की जिसे कोर्ट ने फटकार लगाई है।" (transl. Here in Gujar society, while filing a petition in the Delhi High Court, demanding to show Gujar, which has been reprimanded by the court.) I couldn't find any other source that says Gurjar [community] is reprimanded by the court. In fact [reading from sources], the petition was simply dismissed after the petitioners said their grievances are resolved after the clarification from the film producers that the film is caste-neutral. Rajtantrtv article's headline and the commentary that Gurjars are reprimanded is simply false. I'd say that we do not use it for sourcing on the movie's page [and perhaps also on Prithviraj Chauhan-related pages broadly construed]. It's unreliable in this context. It would be useful if Hindi-speaking editors provide more evidence of such fabrications by Rajtantrtv, if exists, to make an assessment on the site-wide reliability — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for describing this portion,DaxServer; I believe you are accurate in that they may not be correct. I have no objections to this reference being removed at this time; it has already been removed as per the page.
- Venkat TL The rajtantra tv sources is not on page for now and I am not adding anything there as discussion is going on. If you want I can add sources on page.Shanusar (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just looking at their website about-us, t&c. I agree with @Sajaypal007 that this is an obscure news portal. This is not a reliable source — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Both Chetanamanch (above) and this Rajtantra news websites looks quite similar, and comes under category of blog news websites. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think Rajtantrtv.com as a reliable source. The domain is only 4 months old.[1][2]. The site has no much links from reliable news sites. I agree with @Sajaypal007 it is a blog news website. Grabup (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- While I agree with all the users above in their conclusion that Rajtantratv is not a reliable soure, That unreliability is not due to the "look and feel" of the site. It is unreliable due to the factual inaccuracy, that I pointed above. @Shanusar good to know that you agree it is unreliable and should be removed, still you have not explained why you added this unreliable source into the article. Venkat TL (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think Rajtantrtv.com as a reliable source. The domain is only 4 months old.[1][2]. The site has no much links from reliable news sites. I agree with @Sajaypal007 it is a blog news website. Grabup (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)