Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

• Option 1: It is generally reliable.
• Option 2a: It is reliable for domestic Palestinian affairs but is not reliable for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
• Option 2b: It is reliable for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but is not reliable for domestic Palestinian affairs.
• Option 3: It is generally unreliable.
• Option 4: Deprecate.

Option 4. Wafa has no editorial independence from its parent organization, the State of Palestine, which is currently autocratically governed by the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority.^[1] Therefore, it is very biased in favor of the PA.

Additionally,

Khazar hypothesis and justifying the Holocaust in a speech to senior Fatah officials. He also made other false and dubious claims during the speech.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

. Therefore, there is no indication WAFA is reliable for reporting the facts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In conclusion, WAFA is a

Closetside (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Option 3, generally unreliable and of minimal encyclopedic use but not sure we'e at deprecation... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Improper RFC. WAFA has only been discussed once previously at RSN.
  Banks Irk (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I was following

  Closetside (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  What I actually said "At WP:RSN, either one asks whether a source is reliable for some material or one asks whether a source is generally reliable via an RFC." Here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Too early for an RFC Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The first RfC was never formally closed and occurred before Palestinian President Muhammad Abbas' infamous August 2023 speech. Anyhow, what steps should I take to have start a new discussion about Wafa's reliability in general?

  Closetside (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

You don't. A RFC is improper at this time. Follow the instructions at the top of the page. Ask a specific question with all three elements:(1) Source (2) Article (3) Content, with links.

Banks Irk (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

We have a list containing many sources and their reliability (

Closetside (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This is not 'Nam, this is RSN. There are rules.

Banks Irk (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

How do those sources get added to the list? Isn't the level of consensus about the reliability of a source determined by an RfC on the reliability of a source?

Closetside (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Read

Banks Irk (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Ok, this one is really easy. It is reliable for the opinion of the state media agency of the Palestinian Authority, which is very often going to be relevant. It should be frequently-used and always attributed. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add someone’s birthday specifically. Can an Instagram post of them stating it’s their birthday on their birth date work as a reliable source? Thatsoddd (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For basic biographical information, that's usually okay. Obviously replace it with a better source if one ever becomes available. Though that won't give you the birth year, will it, unless they said how old they are? Silverseren^C 21:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The post does say that. Thatsoddd (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is relevant: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_245#WP:DOB_and_thanking_people_for_birthday_wishes_on_Twitter. Additional, there should be no doubt about the authenticity of the account. If it's the Instagram account listed on the subject's website, that's probably a safe bet. It's preferable if you referred to a secondary source, for example, a news paper that discussed the Instagram post and connected to the subject's birthday. Graywalls (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's actually clear on year + date, and if it's verified, see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_48#Tweets_announcing_"Happy_birthday_to_me!_I'm_21_today!". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's 2021. The blue checkmark's meaning has changed a lot since then. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2022/11/14/twitter-parody-accounts-cause-chaos/10696646002/ Graywalls (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes can be used, but do be sure the subject posts regularly. I used it just this way for Maya and Yehuda Devir, for "It's my birthday" posts, and the subjects wrote to me and said the dates weren't actually accurate. Seems they post weekly, so the actual birthdays were a few days off from when the posts went live! Now the article just gives month and year, which they are fine with. --GRuban (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inferring DOB from posting date is not a good idea. There are instances like your example, but if the article in general looks fluffy yet has an exact DOB, it's often an indication of

public relations editing activity. Graywalls (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

That's about Twitter (which got messy, acknowledged), is it the same with checkmarks at Instagram/FB/etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The closer (that's you, @Valereee) stated "verified social media account", so Twitter is not the be-all here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think replying to birthday wishes is an indication that the person is okay with their full dob being included here. @Thatsoddd, do we have a link to the actual post? Valereee (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about this? I would say no, that's not the same. She's saying she's 25, maybe out celebrating her 25th, but I don't see her saying "Today is my 25th birthday." Valereee (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so there’s two other posts from different years on the same date. One that just says “23 🥳” in 2021 and another that says “happy Jenny day #24” in 2022 so it comes down to either one. The ‘happy 25 years’ one can definitely come off misleading as she’s not specific. So feel free to tell me which of those are the better option. Thatsoddd (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ‘happy 25 years’ is more recent, it’s from this year, 2023 so that’s why I used it out of all those. Thatsoddd (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meh...are any of them really enough? Full dob just isn't that important for the reader. I'm kind of on the fence, here. Valereee (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I just put all three then it’s okay? Thatsoddd (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But see

WP:DOB. Is the exact date really needed? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, for me, I'm on the side of no, probably not okay even with all three. I'm not convinced this person is clearly stating they're fine with their full dob appearing here. Valereee (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not something she has ever hidden and she is very much fine with it appearing here. Thatsoddd (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thatsoddd, how do you know she is very much fine with it? Valereee (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most people have their birth date put here and she’s also very vocal about her birthday as well. I also think this helps the reader understand how old she is and is helpful to the reader. I don’t see anything wrong with keeping her birthdate there. I also added a reliable source which is not invasion of privacy. This source though isn’t a direct link so that can pose a problem. Thatsoddd (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to

WP:reliable source. Valereee (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Unless its something explicit "Happy birthday to me, X today!", anything else is verging into OR territory, verified or not. Taking 3 separate posts from different years, none of which are explicit, is certainly OR. It is of course, almost certainly the case that that date is their birthday, but our rules on BLP and sourcing dont have that much leeway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is her replying to someone wishing her a happy birthday on Twitter good enough? She’s replying thank you to someone wishing her. She’s not saying it herself but you can tell that’s her birth date by her response. Thatsoddd (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough that she replies to birthday wishes. I reply to birthday wishes on the wrong date multiple times per year without correcting the well-wisher, it feels only polite. And no, her exact birthdate doesn't help any reader understand how old she is; the birth year is plenty for understanding the age of any adult. How could it possibly matter if she's 24 years and 360 days old vs 25 years and 5 days? And most living people should absolutely not have their exact birthdates included unless those birthdates are widely published in reliable sources. I remove full birthdates from pop culture figures regularly because of this. Valereee (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee BLP rules say we must be able to show a full dob is widely known in reliably published sources before using it. We can give the year however. I see nothing that would allow us to use the full dob. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

What is the reliability of Venezuelanalysis?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3:
  Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Previous RfC from March 2019 can be viewed here. WMrapids (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: After reviewing
  WP:BLP violations, I encountered Venezuelanalysis. At first glance, it is clearly sympathetic to Bolivarianism and, yes, it appears that its creation was assisted by the Venezuelan government. However, it now says that it is funded by individual readers and not from any governments
  (if we can take their word for it). Many of the !votes in the previous RfC were focused on bias and not on substance. While there is one argument arguing over a recognition map (which was highly contested at the time), other users simply made the charge of "fake news" without evidence.

As

attributed.--WMrapids (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I would say "blatant disinformation" would be grounds for option 4 not option 3, so I don't think this is a valid argument against the current consensus.

However, the examples of recent articles more critical of the government are interesting; it may be that there is a shift at the website and it might make sense to review the reliability of recent news articles in the future. However, I checked other recent articles by the same journalists and saw examples of problematic reporting. (For example compare this (essentially a dressed up government PR statement) to this fact based report of the same incident. Or this distorting report to this reliable report.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bobfrombrockley yes, there has been a shift in chavismo strategy for several reasons. One is the International Criminal Court's looking into the evidence for crimes against humanity; shifting blame for those crimes to lowly peons, and critical reporting of those lowly peons, will help the higher ups escape sanction. Another is a move towards capitalism: see for example this Bloomberg report on the propaganda trend. But more relevant is Biden relaxing sanctions in the hopes of free elections next year. By appearing to allow free elections, while barring the leading candidate from running, Maduro gives the impression of free elections, which provides a win–win for chavismo. The examples of reporting critical of the Maduro administration merely reinforces that Venezuelanalysis is on the same propaganda page and well tuned in to the importance of reporting on certain issues with respect to advancing their overall aim, which is the appearance of free and fair elections and no sanctions for crimes against humanity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing some digging Bobfrombrockley, you show that there is a clear difference in the quality of reporting between VA and Al Jazeera. I agree with what you are saying overall (I think), but there should be additional considerations for Venezuelanalysis instead of outright banning it from Wikipedi since it may be useful in some circumstances. As you can see from my comments below, once a source is labeled "unreliable", even if there is a mention of it being attributed, it is essentially given a death sentence by users. So in a similar manner to the (unclear) decision with La Patilla, I don't think Venezuelanalysis should be considered generally reliable at all, that it should be used in contentious articles/claims or for statements of fact, but I do think that it can be used as a secondary source for some Venezuelan government statements (especially since most Venezuelan government sources are essentially deprecated) and that if it is used, that it is properly attributed. Placing in the RSP list on how it could be used in specific circumstances while explicitly outlining how it should be excluded would be beneficial as it would prevent further disputes and misuse while also preventing future, long-winded discussions on what should be permitted. WMrapids (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad RFC This doesn't appear to be a real issue that merits a new RFC. There are only nine articles in which this site is even mentioned, and it looks like just three in which it is cited as a source for anything at all. [29] Where is it being cited as a source that is controversial and merits a RFC?
  Banks Irk (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  Banks Irk: It was previously used at least 252 times and possibly more beforehand, though it has been methodically removed since the last RfC (as recently as July 2023, a user has continued to remove the source). There are some Venezuelan articles where their information may be valuable with proper attribution. WMrapids (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Then, withdraw the RFC and ask specific questions about articles where you want to use the source. Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article?

  Banks Irk (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It's legitimate to have an RfC to see if consensus has changed in order that a source might find broader usage. TarnishedPath^talk 02:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's true but

  WP:RFCBEFORE still applies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  This is not the first time that WMrapids tries to rush into a RfC. WMrapids has created several RfCs in the past two months. Many of those have been retracted or criticized for being rushed.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How else do you achieve such a consensus when a previous RfC made a decision? Users have been removing many uses of Venezuelanalysis following a previous RfC that didn't have many thorough arguments. Some of these were systematically removed while citing the project essay

  MOS:CLAIM wording), though the Venezuelanalysis source and information was removed anyway. Even more egregious are these edits; the user removes the Venezuelanalysis source for an attributed statement and then in a subsequent edit, the user removes the attributed statement from the article entirely, saying it was "unsourced" (even though they removed the source). This behavior has made any usage or mention of Venezuelanalysis a non-starter, which is why an RfC to determine consensus is necessary. WMrapids (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I have looked through the edits by NoonIcarus flagged here. I note that they are quite spread out in time, and don't appear to have been done in a systematic way as implied. I find the majority of them to be completely legitimate - e.g. removing when a better source is present - but did see a couple where removal was hasty and it would have been better to add an "unreliable inline" or "better source" tag to enable editors to fix it, rather than leave unsourced material with a "cn" tag. However, this doesn't appear to have been widespread, and could easily be dealt with following the consensus established at the last RfC by simply reinstating with a tag or raising on talk; it does not justify a new RfC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As

  consensus did change. WMrapids (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela has been notified.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad RFC/Option 4 RfCs should be for determining the reliability of a source being widely used in Wikipedia or for discussing the reliability for its use in a specific instance. This request for comment is neither of those.

However, if I have to leave some comments: if time has taught us anything about Venezuelanalysis, is that it definitely should not be used. The fact that Venezuelanalysis has been funded by the Venezuelan government should not be in question, because Gregory Wilpert himself (co-founder of VA) admitted in an interview with ZMag receiving money from the Venezuelan Ministry of Culture. It does not have editorial independence, its editorial staff is made up of members from deprecated outlets, and its bias affects its reliability. A report from the Venezuelan fact-checking coalition C-Informa offers more insight ("Portals of lies: the international swarm of "independent media" at the service of Chavista narratives". Please read the full article if you have a chance, since it as informative as it is long):

• In the case of media such as Venezuelanalysis, Orinoco Tribune and even the now censored Aporrea, a team full of current and former Venezuelan diplomats in the United States, former ministers and both former and active editors of Telesur, RT and Venezuelan state media operates.
• Here the network shows the least visible and at the same time most powerful node: Venezuelanalysis is the one that has the highest levels of coordination and influence with governmental bodies, thanks to the fact that it has in its team former Chavez ministers, former officials of the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry, former editors of Telesur English and even those accused of corruption in the United States.
• Its staff includes: Andreína Chávez Alava (former editor-in-chief of Telesur Ecuador), Cira Pascual Marquina (professor at Universidad Bolivariana), Rachael Boothroyd (Telesur correspondent and collaborator of Alborada) and Jessica Dos Santos (Actualidad RT and Épale Ccs, with three journalism awards given by the Chávez and Maduro governments) (...) And among its collaborators, the Venezuelan-American Eva Golinger, author of Chávez Code, a book with conspiracy theories on the assassination of Hugo Chávez with nanotechnological weapons, whose ideas are found in a great part of the network studied, thanks to the support especially given by ActualidadRT, Telesur and Sputnik.
• The Venezuelanalysis team also includes former officials such as Reinaldo Iturriza López (former Minister of Culture and former Minister of Communes of Maduro between April 2013 and January 2016 and former director of the official channel Ávila TV) and Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein, former director of International Relations of the Presidency of Venezuela, former Venezuelan ambassador to Nicaragua, former general director of the International Relations Office of the Ministry of Culture, columnist in Misión Verdad and usual commentator as international analyst in Sputnik Mundo, which also published an interview recounting his Sandinista guerrilla experience in Nicaragua.

Not only does it have staff from Venezuelan government members, but also from outlets deprecated in the English Wikipedia such as Russia Today, Telesur, Sputnik and others. This includes Misión Verdad as well, whose hoaxes include comparing the Venezuelan Green Cross [es] to Syria's White Helmets, claiming that have also they staged false flags incidents during the 2017 protests ([37]).

Let's not forget the examples provided in the previous RfC, such as the misleading map about the presidential crisis. Equally important, though, are other examples of false content that has not been retracted, such as the causes of death of Juan Pablo Pernalete (claiming he was killed captive bolt pistol by the opposition instead of a tear gas canister by security forces [38]) and Fernando Albán (saying that he committed suicide, instead of being killed[39]). Both were the versions provided that the Venezuelan government, and that themselves admitted five years later that they were false.

As its name suggests, VA is a website dedicated to analysis, not news. With its lack of neutrality, it means that it is no better than a blog and that it does not belong to Wikipedia. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The three articles you linked don't report any falsehoods. The map is not even "misleading" as it pertains to the latest government recognized by each country. The article that discusses Pernalete discusses in great details the theories the two versions of his death and doesn't take a position either way, and the article on alban merely reports what the authorities are saying, with attribution of these claims to the Venezuelan Attorney General.

Mottezen (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Funding from GOV: This was 2007 and the context was that this occurred during its founding.
2. Cazadores article: Many of the statements here are
   guilt by association arguments (i.e. VA staff previously were part of the government/media org). Ok, but why did they leave such organizations and instead join VA? Were they upset with something? Did they not support the direction though still supported certain ideals. This has nothing to do with reliability. You also attempt this guilt by association by making the false equivalence
   between Misión Verdad and Venezuelanalysis (Venezuelanalysis hasn't made any statements about the "Green Cross")
3. "Misleading map": Some may argue that "silence is complicity", meaning that those who didn't recognize Guaidó (including neutral nations) were instead recognizing Maduro. Others (including Wikipedia) took a more nuanced approach regarding recognition (Guaidó, National Assembly, neutrality, Maduro or no statement). So definitions on recognition (as it was during the entire presidential crisis) may be up to interpretation.
4. Retractions: In their thousands of articles, maybe they overlooked retracting articles on incidents that occurred five years prior to when information was clarified?

As

Mottezen said, you have not provided any falsehoods that can be attributed to Venezuelanalysis. WMrapids (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Option 3: I don’t see what is changed since the last RFC. It is reliable for reporting the statements of the Venezuelan government and its close allies, so should not be deprecated. Most of its content is opinion or commentary, which is neither reliable, nor noteworthy. Its news content is largely secondhand, often from unreliable sources; when the original source is reliable, we should use that instead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [typo corrected 16 Oct][reply]

  @

  not to illustrate a point, but you made a similar argument in a previous RfC though you have a different decision with this particular case. WMrapids (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Thanks WMrapids. Have you got examples of Venezuelanalysis being removed incorrectly? As a result of the last RfC, I looked at some of its usages and found that in some cases it was being used appropriately but in others it wasn't and removed it. For example, it was second hand reporting from either more reliable sources (in which case I replaced with original) or from unreliable sources (in which case I removed and/or tagged). In other cases, opinion pieces were being used as facts, so I removed or added better source tagging. Perhaps other editors were more slapdash in removing a generally unreliable source for material where it might have been appropriate, in which case it would be fine to review those instances or bring them here for discussion, but it doesn't change the basic finding of general unreliability. Re the La Patilla comparison, I don't think they're comparable. La Patilla is staffed by journalists. It reports stuff. It reports stuff that we wouldn't know if we only used government press releases. Whereas Venezuelanalysis is staffed by activists and its original content is not based on actual reporting. Where elements of La Patilla's output are comparable to Venezuelanalysis' (the aggregation), I argued that this should be considered unreliable. Hope this answers your questions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley: I appreciate the thorough response. While you say that they are staffed by "activists", the same could be said by La Patilla due to their extreme bias as well. However, bias does not affect reliability and we have discussed this before. I'm not saying that Venezuelanalysis is generally reliable at all either, just that they may be applicable in certain situations with proper attribution. That is why I chose "additional considerations" since it seems like if it were determined to be anything less, users would simply remove any trace from the project entirely (especially since the WP:RSP entry already suggests use with attribution and it is still being removed). What do you think about this? WMrapids (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "activists" I don't mean "biased"; I mean lacking in any kind of journalistic training or expertise, lacking in normal news-based editorial procedures. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If your position regarding reliability is the same as La Patilla, per the previous RfC, then you should agree that the outlet must be considered unreliable or be deprecated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: I'm glad this RFC was made. I think the previous RFC missed the mark.

Sure, it has received money from the Venezuelan government in the past. Is that an argument for deprecation? There are an awful lot of outlets cited on Wikipedia that have received money from western governments. Should they be deprecated? Of course not.

Sure, they are consistently and predictably biased in certain ways. So is every single "reliable source", without exception. CNN is biased in favor of its advertisers, and against those who criticize its advertisers. The WSJ is biased in favor of wealthy people and against things that disproportionately benefit the working class. Bellingcat is biased in the sense that it receives funding from western governments, and then conducts investigations into those governments' adversaries, while never investigating their benefactors. And all three of these outlets are biased in favor of the USA and against the USA's "adversaries". Should those three outlets be deprecated? Of course not.

Sure, they've released a handful of reports that contained inaccuracies. Find me an outlet that hasn't published misleading information. I'm old enough to remember the Iraq-WMD hoax, which was perpetuated by essentially every mainstream American outlet, due to a combination of pro-US government bias and uncritical credulity. The pro-government disinformation spread, knowingly or unwittingly, by US-based outlets, led to the Iraq invasion, which in turn led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The lesson there isn't that the NYT & others are unreliable. The lesson is that they are biased, and will err on the side of their biases when the fog of propaganda gets too thick to parse.

Sure, they employ some people who've worked for the Venezuelan government. Has anyone taken a look at the career backgrounds of many contributors to US-based "reliable sources"? NBC, CBS, CNN, and others have so many FBI, CIA, and DOD employees on their payroll that I can't keep track of them all. Does that mean we should deprecate those outlets? Of course not.

Additional considerations apply, and editors should take care to understand the context and potential bias of this source before using it. The same should be said for literally every other source. Is it the best source out there on Venezuelan issues? No, but when Wikipedia already suffers from rampant

systemic bias, and many Latin American political issues are primarily presented on Wikipedia from the perspective of the affluent Anglo-American press, allowing the use of this source is a no brainer. Of course Venezuelanalysis should not be deprecated. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The source wasn't deprecated in the previous RFC - that would have been #4. The consensus conclusion was #3.

Banks Irk (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, thanks for correcting me. Indeed, the previous conclusion was #3, not #4. I think all of my arguments are substantively the same - and as a previous editor noted, there has been a multi-year move to remove Venezuelanalysis, so it is, in practice, treated as a deprecated source. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim about Bellingcat here is easily demonstrably incorrect, as well as whataboutery. The "bias is not unreliability" mantra is a strawman argument as the issue with VA is not bias but distortion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad RFC;
  WP:RFCBEFORE Andre🚐 19:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC) I'm coming back here to say that I'll go along with Option 4 or 3 for this source after reading SandyGeorgia's take on it. I believe we have enough good sources that we can afford to be selective when it comes to dicey sources. It doesn't take much for me to see the problem with this source. Given the RFC felt premature but it's proceeding, here is where I am landing. Andre🚐 23:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The lesson there isn't that the NYT & others are unreliable. The lesson is that they are biased, No, the lesson is that they make errors and are susceptible to errors (or intentional lies/propaganda) Andre🚐 19:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is also true. They make errors, and are susceptible to unintentionally amplifying lies and propaganda. However, the NYT has never, to my knowledge, used their front page to accidentally push Ugandan state propaganda, or Bolivian state propaganda, or Thai state propaganda. When the NYT (and others, they're a placeholder) publishes propaganda, it just so happens to be propaganda that is supportive of the US and its allies, and critical of the US government's adversaries. That is a demonstration of latent bias.

Even though these outlets got stories like Iraq/WMD catastrophically wrong, with devastating real-world consequences, they are still reliable sources generally speaking. I read the NYT all the time. My only point in bringing this up is that outlets like Venezuelanalysis, which exist outside the mainstream, affluent Anglo-American bubble, are held to an absurdly high standard in comparison to the standards we typically apply to outlets like the NYT, CNN, WSJ, NBC, BBC, PBS, and so on. The criticisms, that Venezuelanalysis has a generally (but not consistently) pro-government bent, has previously received funding from the government, and has made errors, are all criticisms that can be equally applied to outlets held in high esteem by Wikipedians. I'd submit that this is, in part, due to systemic bias. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable, good faith discussion, but I will use Occam's razor to say that it's much simpler. NYT is obviously reliable, as you say, even though they have occasional errors or latent biases (for the sake of the argument I will grant without getting into whether NYT has ever inadvertently pushed Ugandan propaganda). When it comes to outlets like Venezualanalysis - I don't know if they are reliable or not. But there's a reason why we have high standards for reliability when it comes to state-affiliated media. The bottom line is that we have to determine whether Venezualanalysis has a high standard for editorial oversight, fact-checking, a la

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't the discussion. The question is whether Venezuelanalysis is reliable on its own merits. Andre🚐 22:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough. I do think the broader point I've made above is relevant, but it's good to refocus the conversation on Venezuelanalysis. Here's my final thoughts on this unless a new avenue of dialogue opens up:

Per WMRapids' comment, citations of Venezuelanalysis have been "methodically removed", from 252 to 9. So it's been, practically speaking, deprecated as a source. I also see other folks voting "option 4". I'm troubled by that.

I'd readily concede to your point that Venezuelanalysis is presumably not a bastion of journalistic rigor. Probably much less rigorous than say, the NYT. But it's not a fake news propaganda outlet as some have suggested, nor is it one of those outlets that "somehow" never takes issue with anything its patron government does, like, say, Bellingcat.

Its aforementioned disagreements with the Venezuelan state suggest a level of ideological independence from the government, and it supposedly no longer takes government funds. Its opinions should always be attributed, and never belong in Wikivoice, I'll say that much. But as you know, I'm not much of a fan of having government-funded political opinions in Wikivoice, period.

I maintain that it includes noteworthy information about the politics of Venezuela and the broader region that might not be presented in other sources. If we had an embarrassment of riches in terms of good, high-quality on-the-ground analysis of Venezuelan politics, perhaps the conversation would be slightly different. But as it stands, I think dismissing the source would be a disservice to our encyclopedic coverage of Venezuela, despite its flaws. That's why I've voted "additional considerations apply", and I hope other editors will join me in that vote. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bellingcat has published plenty of articles about the US. A New Platform Maps US Police Violence Against Protesters, American-Made Bomb Used in Airstrike on Yemen Wedding etc. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Philomathes2357: You can see more on how this source and others were systematically removed in my edit above. Again, no sympathy for potential misinformation at all (which is why we are all here), but when readers are prevented from even having access to attributed information, at best it is assuming the reader is ignorant and at worst it is censorship. WMrapids (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4: Deprecate
  

"Venezuela Analysis" is a highly unreliable source. From its wikipedia page, it is described as a news outlet that supports the Maduro regime and its policies.

A quick glance at that site makes it clear that it is a highly politicized and conspiratorial network, rather an outlet that attempts to produce real news. This source should not be used at all, since it is a fake news outlet focused on generating pro-Maduro propaganda. This website is no different from an

unreliable, self-published source.Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Option 1 : No user has yet to provide a single instance of a fabricated claim stated as fact in a VenezuelaAnalysis article.
  Mottezen (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

Mottezen: The Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations (CAIV) identified Venezuelanalysis as one of the outlets that republished "distorted news, omissions and false accusations" about Israel from Iranian media, especially from HispanTV, since at least 2013 (see WP:RSN/Archive 265#RfC: HispanTV

for more details).

Since you're the only editor supporting Option 1 for the time being, it would be good if you provided arguments for clasifying VA under said option or that you reconsider your vote. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to see the said article that were republished. I wouldn’t trust the CAIV for telling me Venezuelanalysis published false information. CAIV is a non-notable organisation that doesn’t even have a Wikipedia article, and its website is inactive since the pandemic. Why do you believe they are an authority on what is false or true?

If you read the arguments for option 2, it sounds like they are advocating for option 1, because biased sources can still have a stellar record for reporting facts, and opinion articles need to be attributed either way.

Mottezen (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Telesur is widely acknowledged as Venezuelan propaganda and rightfully deprecated on Wikipedia for printing false information. Venezuelanalysis reprints Telesur articles as news, not opinion (some of these articles are outright propaganda and misrepresentations, aka lies). A few samples (there is more): [41] [42] [43] In one case, a blatant misrepresentation based on Telesur propaganda, reprinted at Venezuelanalysis.com, was used to introduce a BLP vio into Wikipedia at Nelson Bocaranda (using primary and UNDUE sources[44] to parrot the Telesur lie).[45] Lessening our restrictions on Venezuelanalysis.com means more Telesur propaganda is likely to also be reflected on Wikipedia; it's not surprising they don't indicate editorial oversight or enjoy a reputation for fact-checking, when they parrot Telesur.
2. Nothing has changed since the last RFC. The map issue is misrepresented in some statements above: for example, that Switzerland and other countries were neutral was not "highly contested at the time" (noting also that Switzerland imposed sanctions on Maduro's government while agreeing to represent the US after it closed its Caracas embassy, so some mumbo-jumbo has to occur to represent via a map they support the Maduro government). Where do we draw the line between blatant lies and simple biased slanting? A good example of that is given in their coverage of the ...
3. 2019 Venezuelan blackouts. It's one thing to parrot with bias the chavismo claim that the blackouts were caused by a cyberattack, as they did when the blackouts began in 2019.[46] [47] Presenting only one side's allegations is just bias, which is separate from reliability. But years later, repeating the same bias becomes a matter of absent editorial oversight or fact checking; it's quite another matter to still be parroting the chavismo stance in 2022, with narry a mention of mainstream facts, when not a scintilla of evidence to back the government claims has surfaced, and all unbiased sources acknowledge the causes of the blackouts. Sticking the word "alleged" in front of a blatantly false claim isn't cover for propagating this lie many years after the fact, when more information is known.[48] An entire book on the matter was published by a New York Times journalist.
4. Looking at the about page (and earlier iterations of it at archive.org) is always a first stop when evaluating reliability. Either they have never had a managing editor, or they don't want us to know who it is. Volunteers working around the world do not equate to "editorial oversight", and the current and all historical archives of their about page speak to staff (many of whom have no journalistic credentials), but not editorial oversight. As one example, I noticed multiple news articles written by Paul Dobson, a person with no journalistic training but an interest in Venezuela and seems to be this guy (which that website passes off as a journalist in spite of his Venezuelanalysis bio). I find nothing on their about page which speaks to fact checking or editorial oversight, rather rotating staff who have an interest in promoting chavismo-- that is, the better description of the website is a blog.

So, for now I'm at a 3+; if others produce more examples of spreading Telesur propaganda as news, then please consider me a 4, deprecate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. This can be combatted in a similar conclusion to the La Patilla RfC; simply don't reproduce things source from deprecated sources and attribute properly.
2. There are multiple issues with the map that deserve context. Switzerland could still sanction a government and still recognize it (sanctions from them began in 2018, prior to the presidential crisis).
3. Again, no proof of any mistruths. VA literally writes "The Caribbean nation’s power generation and distribution infrastructure has suffered from a lack of maintenance, corruption and a brain drain, with the issues heavily compounded by wide-reaching US sanctions." So besides the debatable last portion, VA acknowledges corruption and brain drain in Venezuela's electrical management, something you would hardly hear from a propaganda outlet.
4. Plenty of sources have unclear management. La Patilla, for instance, doesn’t even have an "about" page, yet you quickly overlooked that in their RfC and provided the excuse that it was for "safety".

WMrapids (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Venezuelanalysis has a whole category dedicated to Telesur: TeleSUR Archives. Some of its articles include the following:

This includes but is not limited to the conspiracy theory that the

Mottezen:, who also asked for examples of false information. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the examples; this one is incredibly troubliing, as the novice reader is unlikely to understand how that game is played in Venezuela, as it reminds of the sudden naming of people responsible for the murder of Fernando Albán years after the fact; naming some lowly peons responsible after years of denial can help assure the higher-ups in the Maduro administration are not charged with crimes against humanity. I wonder what innocent unnamed person paid the price in the blackout arrest. I wonder if Venezuelanalysis has ever corrected, retracted or restated anything about that arrest report? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Epoch Times and other far-right conspiracy articles reposted by La Patilla. If we are going to go about the same way, we can just note not to use reposts of deprecated sources as we have done with La Patilla and to use the original source if VA is performing a repost. Your decisions appear more based on bias/ideology than based on reliability. WMrapids (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There are numerous differences between the reliability analysis of La Patilla and Venezuelanalysis.

One is Venezuelanalysis extensively using Telesur propaganda for its reporting of Venezuelan news (and it does little else) compared to the allegations in the La Patilla RFC about reprints of almost exclusively info unrelated to its Venezuela coverage (eg COVID). The first alleged reprint I checked in that overly long and bludgeoned discussion that was related to Venezuela had been removed by La Patilla within a day or two, demonstrating the presence of editorial oversight. Aggregated coverage from La Patilla is easily separated from its reporting on Venezuela and no instance of their reporting of Venezuela news was unreliable; Venezuelanalysis is Venezuelan news, and even when they don't directly reprint from Telesur, they report the same propaganda (eg the blackouts). Breitbart and Epoch Times aren't focused on Venezuela; Telesur and Venezuelanalysis are, so ignoring their reprints means ... ignoring them almost entirely, eg, unreliable.

The discussion of La Patilla and other outlets censored in Venezuela having no "About Us" page similarly doesn't even apply to Venezuelanalysis, which is not censored in Venezuela, for obvious reasons: it is pro-chavismo by definition from its outset, and its reporters have not been imprisoned or had to flee the country. A potential reason Venezuelanalaysis doesn't mention editorial oversight is because of the connection between Wilpert and his wife's position with chavismo; that is, obfuscating information for reasons unrelated to personal harm likely to come to reporters from other outlets who criticize the government.

Please avoid turning another RFC into another unreadable mess, and don't bludgeon by distorting and misrepresenting what I or anyone else said on a different RFC with entirely different circumstances and then lacing your comments with aspersions; I most certainly did not "overlook" the aggregated issue, rather I addressed it explicitly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The example that you provided is misleading. La Patilla still has the same article posted, though they hid the mention of Breitbart in the headline. Recognizing that this isn’t a discussion about La Patilla, it still doesn't change how you and NoonIcarus have different opinions are similar discussions. NoonIcarus was one of the only users to find La Patilla "generally reliable" and they now want to deprecate Venezuelanalysis after already leading a crusade to remove it from the project entirely (even removing some content against previous consensus suggestions). I won’t comment further on this to avoid blodgeoning, though the behavior of you two should be on the record for other users. WMrapids (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps you should have brought that information forward on that RFC, not this one. (For that matter, maybe you did, and it was lost among your bludgeoning). And no, La Patilla did not hide the Breitbart, as I can see it clearly in the link you provide. Stop the aspersions that serve only to muddy another RFC;

focus on content. I retain my view that Venezuelanalysis is only marginally different from Telesur outright propaganda; I remain at 3+ but the false information about increasing university enrollment that NoonIcarus pointed out is also a concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The VenezuelaAnalysis link you allege discusses the 2019 blackout is dated from 2017. And the 294% increase in university admissions is over 14 years, so this figure does not strain credulity. China experienced a similar growth in the number of university students over the same period. Plus, you have not provided a link that debunks this claim.

Mottezen (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Separately from what NoonIcarus presents, the article where they repeat the

chavista propaganda blackout conspiracy theory that I present is 2022, with an "alleged" stuck on for cover. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You will note that that the same article also says the following 4 paragraphs above: The Caribbean nation’s power generation and distribution infrastructure has suffered from a lack of maintenance, corruption and a brain drain, with the issues heavily compounded by wide-reaching US sanctions. This is verbatim the main explanation of the 2019 blackouts in our wikipedia article on the subject, presented as a plain hard fact by VenezuelaAnalysis in each of their articles I saw on the subject.

And the full sentence you are referring to is: In early 2019, Venezuela suffered a string of widespread blackouts that covered virtually all of its territory following alleged terrorist attacks. (external links in original, each linking to articles about the governments allegations of the attacks.) Each time the "attacks on electricity generation" claims are relayed by VenezuelaAnalysis, it is always attributed to the government of Venezuela, or simply with an with an "alleged" to differentiate it from the proven facts.

Mottezen (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Bad RfC/Keep previous result (or option 4) this seems like another rushed RfC argued on the basis of misuse of the description of source in a specific article and on a contested (?) result in a different RfC. Per others this source is clearly troubling. It produces or reproduces what other pro-Venezuelan government sources like Correo del Orinoco, Telesur to maintain the government narrative [78] and it is clearly highly opinionated. --ReyHahn (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a masterful tour through the interconnected outlets for

  Venezuelan propaganda, showing the links between Venezuelanalysis and the rest of the propaganda network; what a pity it's not in English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Sandy, NoonIcarus had already posted this "masterful tour" and, as said above, is an article that plainly paints with a brush of

  guilt by association

  . We know that VA has former government staff and reposts some Venezuelan government articles. But that doesn't make VA directly unreliable, it makes the specific reposts unreliable and shows a bias, which isn't related to reliability (just using your previous reasoning).

  ReyHahn, whether or not it "reproduces what other pro-Venezuelan government sources" say or is "highly opinionated", it does not make it unreliable. In your "Option 2" choice for La Patilla, you said "some important examples of unreliable behaviour have been brought here but a few examples are not sufficient to make it a perennial or deprecated source". There haven't been any secondary sources providing proof of VA being unreliable (though its reposts may be questionable). You said La Patilla was "independent" even though its founder and leader Alberto Federico Ravell was part of the Juan Guaidó government and it has been widely been described as an opposition outlet. You also said that La Patilla "published many articles about government and opposition scandals". Well, guess what? So has Venezuelanalysis! So your argument that VA is "pro-government" and thus unreliable is hypocritical.WMrapids (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4: Just another propaganda & fake news outlet serving the interests of a dictatorship. Tradedia^talk 19:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 per widespread arguments in the La Patilla RfC where editors argued that in instances where La Patilla was aggregating content, editors should not use any aggregated content and should evaluate original sources and use those if reliable. That Venezuelanalysis has reprinted Telesur can be treated in the same manner in this situation. I don’t find any other arguments strong enough for marking the source as unreliable or deprecation. There are accusations of bias towards the Venezuelan government’s perspective due to funding but I don’t see how those currently hold water given that there has been no evidence presented that Venezuela continues to fund Venezuelanalysis. TarnishedPath^talk 05:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Bingo - a source isn't unreliable because it reposts content that Wikipedians dislike. We could simply use VA's original articles, and treat the articles from deprecated sources as originating from the deprecated source, not VA. There's ample precedent for this. I also don't see how those funding arguments hold water given the fact that we regularly cite news outlets funded in whole or in part by governments, including multiple state-owned media outlets from the west. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed this article "False claims on alleged 'Kfar Aza massacre' now on Wikipedia" from the

Al-Mayadeen article that their pro Syria govt/Hezbollah bias makes them a wholly unsuitable source to use on Wikipedia, except to report the official views of those factions.english.almayadeen.net   shows that they are currently used 82 times. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

Agreed, I think they should be classified as Generally Unreliable

1. They promotes the US bioweapons in Ukraine conspiracy theory [79]
2. Their owners are anonymous and it's suspected that it's funded by Iran and Hezbollah [80]
3. They said themselves that the Palestinian "cause" would be their centerpiece, so they are unlikely to provide reliable coverage of the region [81]

Alaexis_¿question? 07:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"

Al-Mayadeen

" is a fake news, conspiratorial outlet, and it should be deprecated.

Check its

"Ownership" section which reveals its funding. "Al-Mayadeen" outlet's owner is anonymous. The outlet has also been described as a joint Iranian-Assadist propaganda project.^[1]

In news reporting, "Al-Mayadeen" outlet is explicitly pro-Assad, pro-Iran and pro-Russia. That website has a pattern of promoting conspiracy theories of outlets like Grayzone, Sputnik, PressTV, SANA, etc.

In Syria, it is a vehement opponent of Syrian opposition, dehumanises the Free Syrian Army as "terrorists" and labels Assad regime's indiscriminate bombardment operations as "cleansing".^[2] It is strongly pro-Russia and describes the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a "special operation to demilitarize and "denazify" Ukraine" and literally labelled the Zelensky government in Ukraine as a "Nazi regime".

Its clear that this outlet is nothing but a propaganda venture that doesnt have basic journalistic standards or even care about producing real news.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Al-Mayadeen

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

What is the reliability of

• 1. Generally reliable
• 2. Unclear/special considerations apply
• 3. Generally unreliable
• 4. Deprecate

Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

• Option 4 Like RT (TV network) and Sputnik (news agency) the primary purpose of this organisation appears to be propaganda that wilfully distorts facts to fit its agenda. It has no place on Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 A propaganda outlet of a dictatorial regime. Jeppiz (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4: Depracate

I have explained the overtly unreliable nature of this fake news-outlet in my previous comment above the RfC section. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 If it pro-Assad and pro-Hezbollah, editors would have to figure out when it is lying and when it is not. Better do not use it at all.
  Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option 4 I'm against deprecation of sources on the bases of bias. So I spent some time reading some of the articles separate from the one in question. This source should never be used. Several articles contained lies and I don't mean I disagree with their interpretation, but that they give a link for their source and their sources states the opposite of the wording they have chosen. There are other extremely problematic issues with the articles, but the deliberate misuse of sources to try and mislead readers rules out any use of this site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it'd be instructive if you illustrate further. Not doubting you, but given some of the other commentary here. Andre🚐 23:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide an example of an outright, unambiguous, intentional "lie" promoted by this outlet? That could potentially change my vote, but I'm not too thrilled about deprecating an outlet based on "they've published lies" without some more analysis and discussion. Thanks. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry I'm not willing to provide links to this site, I believe it's that problematic. This is my analysis, and as I have said I'm generally against deprecation, if you wish to see the problems I suggest you do your own analysis. I'm not just saying "they've published lies", I spent an hour or so going through the details and articles of the site and what I found was deeply troubling. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 I'm convinced by the arguments that we do not need this source and we can safely remove it. Andre🚐 22:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 The above arguments say it all, we can find sources that are more reliable. C͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏u͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏r͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏s͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏ed Peace (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 in the best case, per my arguments above (promotion of conspiracy theories, affiliation with Hezbollah, having a "cause"). Alaexis_¿question? 07:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 per the previous arguments, as well as previous discussions on the issue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3+ This is an unamibigously generally unreliable source. Our article on it is a little in need of updating and I actually have a windowful of tabs with mentions via Google News and Google Scholar that I've been meaning to incorporate into the article, but it is clear from them that the issues identified in the 2010s are worse rather than better. I hesitate about deprecation, as there might be times when it could be considered useful (e.g. for the wisdom of Hassan Nasrallah) but I wouldn't object to deprecation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 - I could be convinced to vote option 3, but option 4 is a travesty.

It's frankly depressing to see how giddy editors are to deprecate non-Western sources.

Systemic bias

hard at work, in my view. Al-Mayadeen is a widely-used source of information in the Arab world, with reporters in "most Arab countries" per our own article. Much of their staff consists of former Al Jazeera employees. Yes, they have a bias, which they lay out in detail in their "About us" section. It would be nice if other outlets followed suit, and dropped the ludicrous self-serving pretense that they're conducting "objective" journalism.

If we carry on like this, and every source that deviates from Western consensus is dismissed as "propaganda", "fake news", and "state funded", we will have an encyclopedia that only presents the mainstream Western point of view, to the exclusion of other points of view. The erroneous assumption that underlies this way of thinking is that the mainstream Western consensus represents "objectivity", while any deviation from that point of view represents an incorrigible "bias".

Biases are sort of like accents - almost nobody thinks that they have one, especially if everyone around them has the same accent that they do. Many small-minded people in the USA, who think that they don't have an accent, might make comments like "people from India don't speak English the right way". That's pretty much the attitude I get from the comments here, at the Venezuelanalysis RFC, and at many, many other places on Wikipedia. Non-Westerners don't do journalism "the right way", as defined by models like CNN and BBC.

The fact that sources that contradict mainstream Western consensus are so casually dismissed as "biased" suggests that most editors (practically all of whom are Westerners) are so steeped in pro-Western narratives that those narratives appear "normal" and "unbiased", and it also suggests that most editors aren't conversant in non-Western points of view about politics, which is why, when exposed to them, they apply a reductive analysis and conclude that they must be "fake news" or "pro-X propaganda". It's a huge blind spot on this website.

This source should be used to establish the notability of a topic, or to cite attributed opinions, but shouldn't be used to make Wikivoice statements of fact. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's frankly depressing to see how giddy editors are to deprecate non-Western sources (and much else in your comment) is an aspersion, please strike it. I'm certainly not giddy to deprecate any source, I think your own biases are shown in how you depict other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Bias is not unreliablity" is a straw man. This is an unreliable source because it's unreliable not because it's biased. Plenty of non-western media is excellent. From the same region, Enab Baladi, The New Arab, Asharq Al-Awsat, Al-Arabiya, The National, Arab News (mostly), Orient News are all reliable. Similarly, editors arguing that La Patilla is more reliable than Venezeulanalysis are not doing so because it is more western (in fact VA has more western writers than La Patilla does). Please don't let your general bugbear about bias overcome a basic evaluation of a dreadful news website. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly,

wp:cir, this site is obviously fake news. Cursed Peace (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Option 4 Complete propaganda and fake news garbage. Piece of shit. Also, the commentator above me is barking at the wrong tree. We use TONS of non-western reliable sources. Tradedia^talk 02:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did use the term "non-Western" once, but what I'm really talking about are points of view that deviate from the mainstream western consensus, whether the outlets that express those points of view are geographically based in the west or not. I know this is off-topic so won't continue the discussion unless it appears immediately relevant, but could you name a couple of non-western sources that largely deviate from the mainstream western consensus on geopolitics that are labeled "reliable"? If you could, it might serve as a good point of contrast against Al-Mayadeen. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, Al Jazeera is reliable. South China Morning Post is still reliable last I checked. Haaretz. Uhh... "You name a couple of sources," isn't really how this works. Andre🚐 03:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was just curious about what sources he had in mind when he refers to non-western reliable outlets, in contrast to his characterizations of Al-Mayadeen as "complete propaganda" and "fake news". Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support option 3 or option 4. As Alaexis has pointed out above, the website promotes the Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory. There are at least 21 articles on the website with a "US biolabs" tag, but some, such as "US tested neuromodulators on socially vulerable Ukrainians", are not marked so. In addition, the outlet often cites unreliable sources for its "reporting", such as Twitter accounts ([82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]), MintPress News ([89] [90] [91] [92] [93]), and The Grayzone ([94] [95] [96] [97] [98]). In at least one case it has republished a fabricated news story from the Russian state outlet TASS, without marking it as such. Other than a brief mention in a Reuters article (which notes that "There was no independent confirmation of any of the attacks and Reuters could not ascertain whether they had taken place"), I could not find any reliable sources covering this alleged attack. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 This "news" source hosts holocaust denial articles, i.e. "The Holocaust — that great deception". I am not sure how anyone could read this and think "seems reliable to me" Cursed Peace (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4. Clearest imaginable case. Neutrality^talk 02:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 Blatantly propaganda akin to RT. The Kip 04:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Alaexis: and @Shadowwarrior8: who have already given thoughts about the organisation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Bobfrombrockley, who had very recently commented on this "news"-network elsewhere. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems at best "reliability unclear" or "consensus unclear." I had looked at it and presumed it a

WP:NEWSORG, with a bias, but republishing material from other problematic sources is problematic. Andre🚐 22:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• I've put a notice on Talk:Al Mayadeen about this discussion. For the sake of participation can anyone suggest any other places to give notification? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I left a note at Wikiproject Arab world about this. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you think that this specific citation by independentaustralia.net is reliable and can be used? After first asking this at the Reference desk yesterday, I learned it had been listed as "generally unreliable" by CodeTalker. I believe the citation doesn't make any bold claims though, and wanted to double check if this article particularly could be used as coverage for the Draft:Denys Davydov I'm writing. Cheers! Johnson524 15:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A previous RSN discussion here is generally pretty critical of the publication. Their about us page claims that they require "rigorous fact checking" which seems promising, but the previous RSN discussion seems to contradict that. I'm not overwhelmingly encouraged by the fact that none of their editorial team apparently have any previous journalism experience either.

Re the specific article you cite, apparently the author is a PhD researcher at the Centre for Media Transition, which makes me think that they are likely to have relevant expertise in the topic – though they probably won't yet meet

WP:EXPERTSPS. If it hadn't been flagged as unreliable I doubt I would have questioned its use. It's been a few years since the last discussion though, so editors more familiar with it may be able to weigh in on whether things have changed since the last discussion... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Sorry for the late response. Thanks for looking into this! I saw the "rigorous fact checking" bit and assumed it was fine, but you make a good point with EXPERTSPS. If another editor doesn't chime-in, I believe I will still use it, but I'll definitely be weary in potentially using it in future articles. Cheers! Johnson524 11:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is about [99]. Please chime in. It was discussed here before, but AFAIK no judgment has been passed upon the

• The source that was removed in the linked edit [100] is reporting on the opinion of the interviewee, Apryl Alexander[101], without attribution. It is not reporting in the voice of the author or publisher. Alexander looks like a subject matter expert; whether her opinion is
  Banks Irk (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/

Special:Diff/1179986483 once again brings the automatic "topic overview" pages at Elsevier (Search: "sciencedirect.com/topics/"; "ScienceDirect Topics"; "Sciencedirect" AND "an overview") into spotlight. My opinion is that it is not acceptable as RS because:

• The pages change without notice.
• The page only ever contains quotations of actual published articles, so it's always better to cite from the source. (It clearly lists which Elsevier article it's quoting from, it's not difficult at all!)

The automatic "topic" page occasionally contains a definition in the top area. It is not visible in the grated cheese topic, but glut1 from last time has it. In any case, the machine does not generate anything or write any new combination of words; it just looks for "(TOPIC NAME) is/are/comprises/etc. ...." and puts it in the top area as a definition. The previous discussion assumed that the machine was actually making new sentences.

-- Artoria2e5 🌉 12:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah given that the page is not static, it's effectively like citing a Google search. The actual source should be cited instead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. It is just like citing a Google search. The actual source should be cited, not the search result.
  Banks Irk (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It's this which is based on their database here.[istory.churchofjesuschrist.org/chd/landing?lang=$lang]. It's used for "about 5 percent of the 1846–1868 Latter-day Saint emigrants made the journey west using handcarts". Doug Weller talk 10:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The author of the article, Keith A. Erekson, has appropriate academic credentials, and been pretty widely published by a variety of independent publishers, including academic journals, on American, and more specifically, LDS history. [102] (I have in the back of my head that he had been previously discussed at RSN, but I can't find it in the archives. I guess my recollection is faulty.) So, even if this particular newsletter were treated as a SPS (which I could argue either way), he appears to be a previously-published subject-matter expert that would qualify as a reliable source.
  Banks Irk (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It also appears to say that "currently serves as the director of historical research and outreach for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He also sits on the editorial board of the Church Historian’s Press." so they wouldn't qualify as an independent subject-matter expert at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we can use it with attribution, neither the author or the publication are independent of the Church. Not sure its due though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think he can qualify as a subject matter expert, notwithstanding that he and the newsletter are affiliated with the Church. I say that because he has previously been published by independent, reliable publishers, including academic journals, within his area of expertise. I agree that proper attribution is appropriate here.

  Banks Irk (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  In other contexts he certainly can be, but he's not an independent subject matter expert about LDS church history while a senior executive of the LDS church. Think about it this way... Are Coca-Cola press releases usable on wikipedia under the subject matter expert doctrine if Coca-Cola hires a professor of Food Studies to write them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm just applying the usual

  Banks Irk (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  My understanding is that this falls under "Exercise caution when using such sources" in the SPS formula, part of exercising that caution would be making sure that the source met the rest of our reliability requirements including independence. Although I'm not entirely sure this falls under SPS in the first place as the publisher is the church and not the individual. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reliability of Correo del Orinoco (Orinoco Tribune)?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3:
  Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

A previous discussion in this noticeboard from 2010 mentioned Correo del Orinoco: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Break 6: on Correo del Orinoco

• Comment This RfC has been started at the request of M.Bitton. Correo del Orinoco is currently used in 92 pages   in the English Wikipedia. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 (at least)/4: Correo del Orinoco is a Venezuelan state-owned newspaper that is part of the
  WP:TELESUR
  .

A report from the Venezuelan fact-checking coalition C-Informa "Portals of lies: the international swarm of 'independent media' at the service of Chavista narratives" (also mentioned above, in the currently opened RfC: Venezuelanalysis) explains how Correo del Orinoco is directed by a Venezuelan government official and has amplified propaganda in the past:

• In the case of media such as Venezuelanalysis, Orinoco Tribune and even the now censored Aporrea, a team full of current and former Venezuelan diplomats in the United States, former ministers and both former and active editors of Telesur, RT and Venezuelan state media operates.
• It is directed by Jesús Rodríguez-Espinoza, who was Venezuelan consul in Chicago, between 2008 and 2017, replacing Martín Sánchez (Aporrea / Venezuelanalysis). His articles were used at the beginning of the digital campaign in favor of Alex Saab.

Its bias and lack of neutrality shows that the outlet does not have editorial independence, and its reliability has already been questioned in Wikipedia discussions throughout the years, including due to the republication from unreliable or deprecated outlets:

• On the much discussed issue of independence of Venezuelanalysis staff, referring in this particular instance to Eva Golinger, here is evidence of the sort of independence these people have from the Venezuelan State [...] For the language impaired, it means that the Chavez regime, through Congress, has approved some $3.2 million, so that Golinger's propaganda rag can reach more people. – Alekboyd, WP:RSN/Archive 55, 10:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• After all that research, you did not find that Eva Golinger just got $3.2 million from the Chavez regime to carry on with her propaganda activities in Correo del Orinoco? – Alekboyd, WP:RSN/Archive 58, 3 March 2010
• Correo del Orinoco and Venezuelanalysis are both parrots of state propaganda. – SandyGeorgia, WT:VEN/Archive 4, 15 April 2019
• According to the Antisemitism in Venezuela 2013 report by the Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations (CAIV) which focuses on the issue of antisemitism in Venezuela, "distorted news, omissions and false accusations" of Israel originate from Iranian media in Latin America, especially from HispanTV. Such "distorted news" is then repeated by the Russia's RT News and Cuba's Prensa Latina, and Venezuela’s state media, including SIBCI, AVN, TeleSUR, [...] Correo del Orinoco and Ciudad CCS – SandyGeorgia, WP:RSN/Archive 265#RfC: HispanTV, 19 April 2019
• The recently created Orinoco Tribune [...] uses Telesur, Grayzone and Venezuelanalysis (see
  WP:RSP) as its primary sources – ZiaLater, WP:RSN/Archive 287#RfC: Grayzone
  , 18 December 2019
• [...] Chavismo forced owners of paper manufacturing companies into exile on bogus charges so they could take over paper production and allocate paper only to Chavez-friendly press like Correo del Orinoco (2009) [...] – SandyGeorgia, WP:RSN/Archive 415#RfC: La Patilla, 15 August 2023

Indeed, a quick look through fact checkers will show a consistent history of publishing misleading and/or false information, and how Orinoco Tribune participated in the influence operation on behalf of Colombian businessman Alex Saab, currently indicted with money laundering charges:

All in all, Correo del Orinoco cannot be considered a reliable source. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 (at least): This site is far, far worse than either Venezuelanalysis and Telesur; it is basically a version of them that doesn't even attempt to mix in any respectable reporting or analysis. It is essentially an aggregation site for kooks and conspiracists. On the current frontpage there is content syndicated from Grayzone and Al-Mayadeen for example. I don't think it's necessarily worth deprecating, but we wouldn't lose anything by never using it ever. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 1) like any other source, its "reliability in context" is what matters. Checking the first article of the 92 pages   that it's used in, I see no reason to believe that what is attributed to an official document would be unreliable or made-up. A quick search for the "Official Gazette No. 39,454" brings up this source, which confirms that Bashar al Assad was indeed a recipient of the "Order of the Liberator". Without the crucial information that is listed in the first source, it would be near impossible to verify this simple fact. 2) I didn't ask for this RfC in particular. What I did ask is for the OP to stop removing all the sources that are associated with the Venezuelan government (including government official websites) and instead, to discuss them on this board. M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's "near impossible to verify a simple fact" without using Venezuela state sources, the fact is probably undue. And I find it hard to believe that for chavismo to install what was once Venezuela's highest honor on someone of the "caliber" of Bashar al-Assad is not mentioned elsewhere. So. Here are just a few sources that will provide some context and relevance: [104][105] [106] [107] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't buy into the UNDUE when it comes to simple facts such as this one (numerous first class imbeciles have decorations of all kinds listed in their article) and in any case, that example was given to illustrate a point. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Venezuelan government has lied even about its own official documents in the past. Since we're talking about Venezuela's Official Gazette, the Foreign Affairs Ministry claimed that Colombian business had been appointed as a diplomat (special envoy) in the Official Gazette N° 6.373 Extraordinary. It required lawyers from Saab's current trial in the United States to look after the original document in the Library of Congress (a third and independent source) to demonstrate that this was false, and said appointment never took place. Correo del Orinoco continues repeating this false information ad nauseam, even after a year it has been debunked and published by fact checkers. As Sandy has mentioned, if a fact is relevant enough, it will surely be covered in independent sources. In the case of Assad's condecoration, there are a couple (besides the ones above): Reuters, El País, Chicago Tribune, La Nación.

I started the RfC on Correo del Orinoco because it was the last source whose reliability I disputed, and it also had more uses than

WP:TELESUR, and routinely publish each others' news (something that I explained in a comment linked in the edit summaries but that you refused to read, saying that it was "an irrelevant discussion"). Most of these issues affect the other outlets in question as a result. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you suggesting that the other governments don't lie? What Sandy said doesn't hold much water: if a list is DUE, then so is every factual entry in it. M.Bitton (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with M.Bitton that NoonIcarus was probably wrong to remove the fact about Assad's honour from his BLP; it would have been better to flag with "unreliable inline" or "better source" so other editors could verify and insert alternative sources. But that's an issue with how generally unreliable sources are dealt with, not an argument against the general unreliability of this source. (If the source was deprecated, then full removal would be the correct thing to do of course.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Bobfrombrockley, the "at least" is key. Wherever Venezuelanalysis ends up, this is worse. [108] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4: Just another propaganda & fake news outlet serving the interests of a dictatorship. Tradedia^talk 19:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should

This isn't a reliable source related RFC is it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indirectly, as is another related RFC asking "Should "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" be included in the list of major terrorist incidents?" Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RS say if that interests you. TarnishedPath^talk 05:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. I see questions about use of RSs are important to the discussion, and I also see that the article is full of bad sourcing (not related to Gaza) and would benefit from source-focused editors’ attention. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this publication which is cited more than 200 times on Wikipedia. The issue is that I cannot find anything indicating there is editorial oversight. There is an about page on the website and a list of staff with "editor" titles. My main issue is searching the names of the editors along with their previously listed employment doesn't yield much other than some bylines and LinkedIn profiles. Wondering if anyone can take a closer look and let me know their thoughts on reliability of the source. CNMall41 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd vote unreliable. I checked the website, visited the about our staff. Despite over half of the contributors having editor titles, their bios were full of barely readable prose. I suspect nobody is actually acting as editor since all contributors are contribtor-editors. Cursed Peace (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the Polish election, and note that Google has the Polish state broacaster Telewizja Polska, aka TVP, high in the English-language results for the vote count. However, TVP seems to have a poor reputation, and seems to be widely considered to be a government propaganda outlet: see [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115].

Nevertheless, Wikipedia seems to have numerous citations to TVP: see this search.

There have been multiple disccussions of TVP's reliability here in the past (see this search).

Most recently, this discussion seems to have reached the conclusion that while TVP is generally reliable about non-controversial facts, it is unreliable in matters related to politics, and effectively acts just a mouthpiece for the government. There seems to be a similar opinion regarding Polskie Radio, which is similarly state-owned.

However, there's no entry for either in the perennial sources page. Should there be one? — The Anome (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The perennial sources page is only generally for sources that have been repeatedly discussed, so I don't think this quite makes it.

At lot of what appears in the search for uses of TVP are not an issue, part from many use of TVP Info which are throwing of the search results (I still can't get my head around how regex is used), there are many others with references related to television, sport, and deaths that are likely not an issue.

Not to say there aren't some problematic uses, Culture war for instance, but this appear the minority and not a big enough issue for listing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be used as a source for any Polish political material, because it is (as mentioned above) a mouthpiece for the current Polish ruling party. [116] [117] [118]. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Llll5032: raising this because I don't know. I think we can but perhaps with attribution and wording such as "allegedly". Here's the rfequest for a 3rd party source [119] Doug Weller talk 08:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think

WP:BLPSPS issues are sufficient for removal without a clear reason for inclusion for each specific person listed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, funny coincidence Doug, but you're actually mentioned at Talk:Professor Watchlist because of a smaller scale removal 5 or 6 years ago. Obviously, specific circumstances have likely changed since then, but it usually amuses it comes up for me, so I thought I'd point it out. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031 Yes, I saw my edit. Of course that was a secondary source, but yes, I think that without an independent source we shouldn't list them. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All said://nosaid:liability frameworks 174.90.223.255 (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may need to explain you question a bit more thoroughly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, statistical updates I made across a set of articles have been challenged by an editor (courtesy ping @Durziil89:) who claims that Morocco World News (source) and

]

Why wouldn't they be reliable? What would a "reliable" source for the claim look like? Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2020, it has 1.9 billion adherents, or 24.9% of the global population. According to data from the Pew Research Center, the global Muslim population was estimated to be around 1.8 billion in 2015, and it's projected to reach 2.2 billion by 2030. Some sources indicating that the number reached 2 billion but not reliables, unless someone shares reliable sources. Morocco World News The Munsif Daily, based their data and claims on "the Global Muslim Population website".

Global Muslim population website, is the website that these sources based their claims on it, and this website is not a reliable source. Durziil89 (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it differently. Is this source reliable for this claim. Nobody can accurately count the followers of any large religion. 1.8-2.0 are reasonable estimates. But realistically, why would a daily paper be a reliable source on when Islam gets its 2 billionth follower? It probably isn't objectionable to attribute it to the paper, but this isn't enough to use wikivoice Cursed Peace (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't see any problem attributing it to the papers in question. But I wouldn't use Wikivoice, or change any tables/infoboxes based on these alone. Although, given that "nobody can accurately count the followers of any large religion", it's not clear what source would be "reliable enough" to say in Wikivoice that Islam has over 2 billion followers. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need most reliable sources to agree to use wikivoice for this claim. For most topics, someone will almost always dissent. But this claim isn't clearly true with just this source. This paper, obviously, didn't count every Muslim alive. Once most sources say there are over 2B, it won't be controversial to use wiki voice. Until then, its probably the most informative to use a range with multiple sources. Cursed Peace (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources stating in their own voice (without attributing to 'Global Muslim Population' website) that there are 2 billion Muslims

• Anadolu Agency (source)

• The Times of Israel (source)

• The Kansas City Star (source)

Any thoughts about the reliability of this group of sources? To me, they all seem reliable for this application.

Left guide (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Why do you want to replace a comprehensive study about the Muslim population that relies on a clear methodology - Pew study - (it cites different sources for the numbers it relies on, whether they are from statistical institutions or an official population census, and its estimates include fertility, age, religious conversion and other factors), with news sources that mention that number in articles about Muslim celebrations?. The latest global estimate of Muslims was that made by the Pew Research Center in 2015 which put the number at c. 1.8 billion. Durziil89 (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Left guide (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

We have a comprehensive study on the Muslim and other religious population from 2015, Published by made by the Pew Research Center in in 2017, which put the number at c. 1.8 billion: [120].

We have "Religious Composition by Country, 2010-2050" by Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures Project, which put the number at c. 1.9 billion (2020) [121]

We have two sources Morocco World News The Munsif Daily put the number at c. 2 billion (2023), based their data and claims on "the Global Muslim Population website" (Global Muslim population website not a reliable source).

We have 3 news sources about Muslim celebrating Eid-al-adha (1), (2), (3), cited superficially that there is 2 billion Muslims celebrateing Eid al-adha.

I believe that the priority remains in using the Pew studies in these articles, it includes population numbers in all countries of the world (and includes different sources for each country), and includes fertility, age structure, religious conversion, etc.Durziil89 (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Islam article currently says 1.9b, the reference for it says 1.8b, so use the range "1.8 – 2.0 billion" add the references for both and find something else to do. Both are based on estimations not head count, and the difference is minor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good suggestion Durziil89 (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with this idea.

Left guide (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

sweetwater.com (music retailer)

I suspect https://www.sweetwater.com should not be used as a reliable source for information on music technology, as it's a retailer with no established editorial oversight. (The consensus was the same for reverb.com in previous discussions.) Am I right there? Popcornfud (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, we're wondering if this page can be used in the synthesizer article to support an explanation of linear arithmetic synthesis. I would prefer not to use an online retailer as a source, but perhaps I'm being overcautious. Popcornfud (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The source is a retailer, not a publisher, and the article author is anonymous. It's a SPS that meets none of the exceptions needed to qualify as a RS. So, you're not being over-cautious.
  Banks Irk (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Vendors have an interest in promoting products, this shouldn't be used for anything except attributed quotes about sweetwater Cursed Peace (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Request_for_comment

An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. It would be appreciated if more experienced editors were involved. TarnishedPath^talk 05:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topwar.ru reason for blacklist and possibility of reinstation

I wanted to use a Topwar.ru as a source in my article on Russian ballistic vest, but it is apparently blacklisted. Topwar is indispensible in writing articles on obscure military gear. I understand that Topwar.ru publishes a lot of opinion pieces which might not pass the standards of neutrality, but the same is true of otherwise reliable sources that alllow opinion articles. Should New Yourk Times be blacklisted because of its "Opinion" articles section? I think not. A website similar to topwar - The Drives "Warzone" also is at times biased towards Us POV, but is nonetheless permitted on Wikipedia.

Could anyone please point me to a page where I can ask to deBlacklist this website from Wikipedia? Thank you. F.Alexsandr (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is it, and if it was blacklisted it was because was untrustworthy for factul accuracy, not because it published opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on obscure military gear which don't use it so it clearly isn't indispensable. Perhaps you mean useful or some other much less hyperbolic term? In general the issue with Topwar.ru is reliability, not allowing opinion articles or being biased towards a Russian POV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, Topwar is mainly written by its contributors, not the Staff. i Disagreee that website is inherently unreliable. Anyway, I just want to know a page wheere moderators would have to authority to review my request to delist this website from unreliable sources. Could you please point me in the direction of such page? F.Alexsandr (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then how is it comparable to The Drives Warzone which is written mainly (almost entirely) by staff? We have no such "moderators" on wikipedia, you are currently at that that page and your request is in the process of being reviewed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read

wp:sps. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It was blocked as a fake news/disinformation site. You can find the discussion at

MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It wasnt given a proper discussion. It seems like it was mentioned in passing among several different websites and specific problem with website was never stated. F.Alexsandr (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie… not finding a discussion about Topwar.ru in that archive. Which thread? Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been part of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#news-front.info. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Registration appear to allow you to add articles to the site, which would make this
  WP:UGC and unusable even if it wasn't blacklisted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

But

WP:UGC specifically states that newspaper and magazine blogs are an exclusion. F.Alexsandr (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

But its not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• it does appear that the prior discussion was pretty superficial, but this is clearly a
  Banks Irk (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

User:Banks Irk @User:ActivelyDisinterested In that case, the popup that prevents me to use the source says I can request a whitelist of a specific article. The article I need is writtten by a staff member of the newspaper. https:// topwar. ru/181568-sovremennye-obschevojskovye-bronezhilety-rossijskoj-armii.html</ref> Can someone whitelist the article? F.Alexsandr (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It's obviously an unreliable source, I think it is very unlikely that anyone would whitelist it.

MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

My comment wasn't in regard to it being blacklisted, the article is written by some random people who has registered for an account on the site. Such sources are never usable for referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The author is listed as a staff member on the bout page. Even if source is unreliable, a specific article can still be whitelisted F.Alexsandr (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't established that articles written by staff (if that one is, I'm not sure) are reliable either. I don't see any reason to treat this specific example any differently from the rest of the site.

MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

RfC: Anadolu Agency

Which of the following options describes Anadolu Agency (English language edition) the best as a reference?

• 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
  deprecated
• Note: The
  WP:RSPS
  .

Survery

• Option 1 for general topics and option 2 for international politics – Anadolu Agency is the oldest and most well-established news agency in Turkey.^[1]

According to Serpil Karlıdağ from Başkent University: "Media agencies such as Anadolu Agency are official state institutions. [And] Anadolu Agency is an important device for the official discourse to circulate."^[2]

According to Ebru Karadoğan İsmail from Üsküdar University, "...Anadolu Agency's coverage is comprised of short stories that focus on factual statements and immediate outcomes rather than an elaborate analysis..."^[3]

According to Mehmet Özçağlayan and Omo Aiman Boudchar from Marmara University, Anadolu Agency is regarded as a reliable source in the Arab world.^[4]

Anadolu Agency's content is used by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International.^[5]

From my personal experience, most of the pieces on Anadolu Agency is regular content published in Western press often with Turkish viewpoint. But I haven't came across explicitly false statements. While it is described by multiple sources as having a bias for Turkey (as seen in the previous RfC),

WP:BIASEDSOURCES

are allowed as long as they are publishing factual content.

Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2, Anadolu is a government mouthpiece and offers a significant viewpoint but not without significant bias (especially when it comes to special issues such as the Kurds and elections). I would say its generally usable with attribution except for controversial topics which involve Turkey. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2/3, I'm not seeing anything to justify changing the prior consensus. OP seems to be confusing "state institution" for reliability. The cited examples of Amnesty International articles are primarily using AA's photojournalism, not their factual reporting, with the exception of [122] where they are given attribution for an uncontroversial detail. Scholarly assessments of AA, such as Irak 2016,^[6] describe AA as a mouthpiece of the Turkish government closely controlled by AKP leadership. The examples of İsmayil 2022 and Özçağlayan (2022) are being misrepresented; İsmayil is purely describing AA's writing style, not that it has a track record of reliability, and Özçağlayan is a) purely discussing TRT Arabic, not AA as a whole, and primarily discusses indicators of the publication's popularity, rate of publication, and general Turkish soft power across the Arab world rather than its reliability as a news source. In fact, Özçağlayan's analysis directly treats AA as a public relations vehicle for the Turkish government and assesses its effectiveness based on its ability to promote Turkish interests. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is 100% false. Organizations like

  Gülen network's disinformation platform Taraf.^[8]

  The other sources are presented absolutely correctly. Özçağlayan does not discuss TRT World at all in his paper: "The study also shows that these newspapers, which are known for their professionalism in the Arab world, consider Anadolu Agency as a reliable news source." Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2-3 (Keep current listing): According to
  in-text attribution for its usage.--WMrapids (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option 2 for general topics - simply keep in mind it's a state broadcaster. Option 3 for Turkish-related articles (be they politics, culture, war/disasters, etc) - Anadolu has an extensive recent history of pushing the Erdogan government's line on things. The Kip 04:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ Kurban, D., Elmas, E. (2012). Turkish Media Policy in National Context. In: Psychogiopoulou, E. (eds) Understanding Media Policies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137035288_14 "Of the 24 news agencies, the official one, Anadolu Agency (Anadolu Ajansı), in operation since 1920, is the oldest and the primary news source for the press."
2. ^ Karlidag, S., & Bulut, S. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook of Research on the Political Economy of Communications and Media. IGI Global. p. 106
3. ^ Ismayil, E., & Karadogan Ismayil, E. (Eds.). (2022). Media and Terrorism in the 21st Century. IGI Global. p. 113
4. ^ Özçağlayan, M., & Boudchar, O. A. (2022). The Impact of Anadolu Agency News as a News Source on Arab Media and Arab Public Opinion. TAM Akademi Dergisi, 1(2), 96-125. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tamde/issue/73915/1220453
5. ^ [1][2][3][4] "...it was proven by groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, with the latter’s investigation including photos captured by Anadolu."
6. ISSN 1468-3849
   .
7. ^ [5][6][7][8][9] (BBC) [10][11][12] (FT)
8. ^ https://github.com/belgeci/Taraf/tree/master/Da%C4%9Fhan%20Irak

Discussion

• It appears that this publication is very widely cited as a source in Wikipedia, over 2000 times [124], and its current classification at RSP is presenting no barrier to such use. Other than the OP's position that they believe that a higher reliability classification is warranted, is there a practical reason for a new RFC here? I don't see one.
  Banks Irk (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Also that the last RfC is 4 years old, in addition to the what you've said: "Stale discussions: The source has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for four calendar years, and the consensus may have changed since the most recent discussion." (copied from wp:rsps) Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Keraunos

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Wikipedia proposals Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which of the following options describes the Observatoire Français des Tornades et des Orages Violents (Keraunos) (Website) [Translated: French Observatory of Tornadoes and Violent Thunderstorms] the best as a reference?

• 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
  deprecated

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: No prior RfC RS-related discussions and no (sourced-based) Wikipedia article, however, cited on several weather-related articles including (not limited to): October 2022 European tornado outbreak, List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes, 2018 Atlantic hurricane season, List of European tornadoes in 2022, Tornadoes of 2022, Montville, Seine-Maritime, 1984 Soviet Union tornado outbreak, List of tornadoes by calendar day, Enhanced Fujita scale, and dozens of others locatable via a search of "Keraunos" and "tornado" in the Wikipedia search bar.

Survey

• Option 1 - Keraunos is cited in scientific published papers ((2 citations - American Meteorological Society article), (2 citations)), published scientific articles ([125]), cited by news outlets (Connexion France, The Weather Channel) and cited by the European Severe Storms Laboratory on several occasions (one visible on the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes, 1845 French tornado). All indications are that it is a reliable source. P.S. No disagreements have occurred previously about this source, however, given how much it is cited on Wikipedia, a RfC confirming it is notable is probably best. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Does this really need an RFC if there has been no prior discussion? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. On October 2022 European tornado outbreak back in July, there was a disagreement between editors related to a Keraunos article. It was edit-summary debate and no discussion on a talk page occurred. Also, now that I looked, there is an undated/unsigned comment on Talk:August 2008 European tornado outbreak related to a Keraunos article (editor disagreeing with it) and a comment on Talk:1984 Soviet Union tornado outbreak mentioning a Keraunos article back in 2011. Having a formal "it is reliable" or "unreliable" discussion can at least solve any future debates that would arise. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 Doesn't list a staff page or state the actual qualifications of the individuals involved, which makes the assessments it creates unreliable by default. There is no way of knowing who wrote the reports.
  AA^Talk 22:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Question, in situations like this, is it not assumed that the "staff" wrote it? Obviously the National Weather Service offices contain a staff-directory, but things like tornado damage surveys do not ever include an actual author. Also, that begs a question of how do we handle the 1845 France F5 tornado? ESSL's sole URL based source for it is Keraunos (seen in [126]). ESSL is a reliable source, so that would complicate ESSL's usage of Keraunos. I.E. We say ESSL is using an unreliable source. Just some questions/food for thought I guess. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The NWS is widely cited and known to be reputable where the same can't be said for Keraunos. I see further literature there that would support what is being claimed so it may not be an issue.

  AA^Talk 23:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Bad RFC. No prior discussion, no active dispute. There is no reason for an RFC. It does look like there are nearly 100 citations to this site. If there are indeed no named staff/authors/editors, that does make assessment of reliability problematic. Ask the simple question, "Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article?"and withdraw the RFC.
  Banks Irk (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'm disputing its reliability here. This definitely would fail in a SR at FAC since there is no indication of who the staff are other than they are "professionals". While it isn't a newspaper and wouldn't have editorial oversight, there is a minimum that authors be identified and their qualifications be listed in order to determine they are qualified in making the statements that they are. Withdrawing this RfC would sweep the issue under the rug and simply require another discussion. Why not just tackle this here since we are already discussing it?

  AA^Talk 22:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

NoeHill.com

noehill.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I am seeing it used in over 400 articles, but I do not think it meets

self published source. Do you all feel it adds useful value in the way they're used in many of those articles that use it as as source? Graywalls (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• It's clearly an anonymous self-published blog. Just a personal travelogue and not a reliable source.
  Banks Irk (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I checked this site, this is clearly not reliable for statements of fact Cursed Peace (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]