Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 268

There is a new initiative regarding media coverage of climate change. I'm not quite sure whether they've settled on a title — I've seen "Covering Climate Change in a 1.5-Degree World" as well as "Covering Climate Change: A New Playbook for a 1.5-Degree World".

I applaud any initiative to improve the coverage of this important issue.

The initiative was kicked off with a live streamed conference. I got the impression from the conference presentation that it was a joint venture of CJR , The Nation, and The Guardian, although some reports suggest that the initiative is led by CJR, The Nation, with the Guardian and WNYC as cosponsors. Some of the announcement materials, such as The Media Are Complacent While the World Burns, suggest this is "merely" a call for better journalism, although there are hints of a more ambitius initiative:

There is a runaway train racing toward us, and its name is climate change. That is not alarmism; it is scientific fact. We as a civilization urgently need to slow that train down and help as many people off the tracks as possible. It’s an enormous challenge, and if we don’t get it right, nothing else will matter.

I've been very interested in climate issues for many years and look forward to seeing some of this coverage.

By now, you may be wondering why I'm writing here. I urge you to watch the conference (Warning it is over five hours, although they do take a lunch break).

The conference participants make it clear that they intend this initiative to be a seachange in the way climate issues are covered. At approximately the 1:21:34 Margaret Sullivan talks about the distinction between observers and advocates. Traditionally, the media specifically adopts the role of observer rather than advocates. She notes the example that when it comes to press rights, the media cannot simply be observers but they must be advocates. She uses that as a jumping off point to suggest that when it comes to climate change, it is okay for the media to be advocates for healthy planet. (It wasn't perfectly clear to me whether she was advocating for this change to apply to all media or only media outlets that join in this initiative).

At approximately 2:18:00 Katrina vanden Heuvel (Of The Nation) reiterates Margaret Sullivan's point and supports the notion that it's time to become advocates.

I'm not here to suggest that it is wrong for journalists to abandon journalism and become advocates. If an issue is truly as important as they believe it is, becoming advocates is a principled decision. However, Wikipedia treats sources differently depending on whether they are straight news organization or advocates. If this initiative gets off the ground (and Bill Moyers, on hehalf of an organization he heads, pledged $1 million to it in the closing speech), I think Wikipedia has to treat the organizations signing onto the initiative as advocates rather than news organizations, limited of course, to climate coverage.

We often wrestle here with sources who have blurred the line between pure reporting and advocacy. While this issue is a bigger deal, we don't have to read between the lines or infer anything — they openly state their support for becoming advocates.

I don't expect this to be a slamdunk proposal and I invite thoughtful commentary. I will ask that anyone responding identify how much of the conference they watched. I'll emphasize that the links to text I provided don't make the transition from journalism to advocacy as clear as the speakers at the conference.S Philbrick(Talk) 16:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm very wary of your proposal, or of any proposal that seeks to downgrade reliable sources simply because they're committed to covering the science of climate change accurately. I don't see the sharp distinction between journalism and advocacy that you do in this case. When journalists cover HIV/AIDS, for instance, they do so from the perspective that it is a clear public-health threat; efforts to combat the disease are implicitly positive, while barriers to confronting the disease are implicitly negative. That's not "advocacy"; it's an assumption of a shared set of basic human interests. Since climate change is an even greater threat to public health and well-being than HIV/AIDS, I don't see the problem with acknowledging that in its media coverage.

  Having watched some (not all) of the links you provided, my sense is that the goal is for the media to move away from reflexive false equivalence and both-sidesism on the issue. That is, the goal is to re-set the

  Okrent's Law—"The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true").

  The bottom line is that, no, I don't agree at all that we should downgrade reliable sources on climate change. They are committing to cover the topic more accurately and appropriately, and in a manner more commensurate with its gravity and with the scientific and scholarly understanding of the topic. That's a good thing in terms of their reliability and suitability, not a bad thing. MastCell ^Talk

  18:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Let’s wait and see what happens. We need to see HOW these outlets change their reporting before we can decide how we should respond. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar, I completely agree. I believe this initiative is supposed to kick off in September, so we have some time but given the stature of the media outlets involved, I thought it would be good to to start the discussion now. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

MastCell,

They are committing to cover the topic more accurately

With all due respect, I wouldn't be here if that was their goal. The text-based links leave that impression, but the conference leaves a different impression. Did you hear where they said:

There's no pressure to contend with people who have opposing views or whatever. They're wrong, and we don't have to talk about them.

? That's a sign of straight-up advocacy, not responsible journalism.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That looks like the same practice as what we require in our

undue weight policy. The organizations intend to treat climate change denial as a fringe theory that deserves reduced coverage, instead of creating a false balance between two sides that have vastly different levels of scientific support. — Newslinger talk

21:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• 2 cents - much of the media discourse on Climate change is advocacy - with almost religious undertones. I would advocate that Wikipedia, in general, avoid media sources for the subject - and use published scholarship which is more nuanced (and obviously supports climate change - however most academic writing (in the majority, or in the minority still disputing climate change) - gives at least a nod towards opposing arguments (as opposed to blanket dismissal)). For some topics - media sources aren't the best - e.g.
  WP:MEDPOP - "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality,[31] costs, and risks versus benefits,[32] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[33] - the situation with climate change (on the science, ignoring politics - which obviously is more a media issue) is similar. Icewhiz (talk
  ) 07:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  Icewhiz, I am not on board with avoiding media sources generally. I I am quite aware that we take considerable care to use high-quality sources when talking about medical subjects, and I think we try to do the same when talking about the narrow subject of climate science, but we have a host of articles lumped into the arena of climate issues which specifically include the public's view of the issue in various attempts by advocacy groups to shape the discussion. It would be close to impossible and arguably irresponsible to limit those discussions to scholarly papers as sources. When making a scientific statement such as Arrhenius's rule, I totally agree that a peer-reviewed source is better than a mass media source, but there are other subjects where mass media sources make sense. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• A related issue on this is recognizing that when the media starts to become an advocate for an issue, people that are opposed to that issue or the like start to become the subject of red-lettering, vilifying, or other negative press (since their ideas are not in line with the media's), and this ends up become the mode which WP treats these people because "it reflects what the media is stating". We need to be very careful of repeating without question media advocacy in our articles. WP should be amoral to most topics and should not blinding repeat what the media says but instead filter that impartially. We should not be treating "climate change denier" as a sign that a person is bad and thus influence us to write their article from a negative standpoint, just because many media sources do. --Masem (t) 13:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Journalists stopping to sit on the fence between science and lunatic charlatanery, and instead joining the science side, is a good thing. It actually makes them much more reliable than before. Wikipedia should applaud. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Right now the biggest problem with the way Climate Change is covered is that they try to provide 'balance" between well established scientific fact, and what are basically fringe views. If they're honestly going to eliminate their efforts to provide that false illusion of balance, then their coverage will become more reliable, not less. (And they would be bringing their own policies more in line with Wikipedia's, I might add.) ApLundell (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I believe the same scrutiny we apply to our medical articles should apply to articles about climate change. I check-in on the NASA website from time-to-time, and also read the sources they cite. Another issue I'm seeing is that we should focus more closely on verifiable facts and known effects that science has determined to be a direct result of climate change. We should be very cautious of clickbait sensationalism and speculation by news media, in much the same way we scrutinize them for medical articles. If we do decide to use the highest quality news sources, like NYTimes, we should also verify the sources they cited and make sure we include all relevant views per DUE. I think we should steer clear of fear mongering which is neither scientific nor encyclopedic. The NASA article published the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which "forecasts a 2.5 to 10F degree rise over the next century." Alot can happen over the next century. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In this diff, citations to Breitbart were added to

1. is it OK to evade the blacklist by not using URLs?
2. is Breitbart a reliable source for criticism of Wikipedia? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

In general, if the criticism is valid, better sources may cover it. But generally unreliable sources can still be used with attribution to cite the opinion of the person who wrote it. Resulting in the question: is that particular person's opinion considered important in the context? Is the person qualified to say that? Unless the article was anonymous, I would personally avoid using "according to Breitbart News", with more specific attribution to the author. For the blacklist-evasion, requesting that specific links be whitelisted is possible. —PaleoNeonate – 19:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, are we going to cite Wikirev, Wiki in action and such for criticism of Wikipedia now? These sources are garbage-tier no matter what. Evading the blocklist is tantamount to spam.

🌹🌉

19:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

1. No.
2. No.

François Robere (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and

I support that, —PaleoNeonate – 20:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• If an editor wants to cite a page from a source that is on the
  spam blacklist, the correct way to handle this is to nominate the link to be added to the spam whitelist. Any blacklisted website page that doesn't qualify for the spam whitelist shouldn't be cited in a Wikipedia article, regardless of whether it is linked. — Newslinger talk
  21:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Short answer: remove BBN here as it is being used for claimed statements of fact (what various WMF ppl said). BBN is not a RS for any factual information and the blacklisting/spam filter addition is to prevent editors from trying to add it easily. BBN can still be used for RSOPINION statements, if BBN's opinion is adding something useful. --Masem (t) 21:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The given reason for the addition to the blacklist was "to control massive spamming and disruption by JarlaxleArtemis socks". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not a reliabe source. Not, usually, a notable opinion. And not even reliable enough to trust them on a third-party opinion. Burn it with fire. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. Any notable criticism or other opinion will either be published by a more reputable outlet or receive coverage by other independent, reliable secondary sources. Either way, I don't see any basis for citing Breitbart outside of the
  R2 (bleep
  ) 17:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Is mayoclinic.org is a RS?

For what?Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@

Puduḫepa (talk

) 14:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand, it is not the topic that counts, its what they are specifically being sourced for. You seem to have a lot of sources there, so why do you want to use this one?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I may not use all the sources I linked there—I have just gathered them as they seem relevant. It was a general question btw, not specific to the page I linked. I would like to know if Mayo Clinic is regarded as RS for the articles related to med.

Puduḫepa (talk

) 14:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

No more then any other hospital, which mean context matters. They may well be reliable for some stuff, but not for others.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic is a reliable source in general for medical claims in general and its website is also reliable source in general for a wikipedia page on the hospital itself. But context matters on the claim being made. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDSCI allows monographs. However, if systematic reviews or guidelines are available, they should take precedence. -Mys_721tx (talk

) 18:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

While it may meet rs, it's better to use medical text-books or peer-reviewed articles because they provide sources which readers might to look at and it makes it easier for editors to resolve any conflict of facts in various sources. If for example, Mayo provides one figure for the number of people who have contracted a certain type of illness while a similar source provides another, we cannot determine which is correct. But if we use academic sources, they will provide sources, such as a CDC study. We can then look at these sources and determine whether they have been correctly reported.

I have come across a number of cases where information originally reported turned out to be incorrect. In those cases, it was helpful to have citations in the sources used, so that I could determine which was correct.

TFD (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ TFD--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Almost none of our readers look at the sources we cite, much less at any footnotes that might be in the sources we cite, so I think that's a minor consideration.

Mayo Clinic and similar sites are okay sources for general, uncontested information. They're good for things like "People taking SSRIs sometimes experience side effects", but not things like "exactly this percent of people taking SSRIs will experience this specific side effect".

IMO it's reasonable (although not mandatory) to cite the occasional source that an average adult could read and understand (i.e., something that's not a medical textbook or an academic journal article). But you should build your article primarily from your highest quality sources, and this is only an "okay" source, not a great one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia advises, "Where articles have references to external sources (whether online or not) read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says." Furthermore, "In most academic institutions Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias and other tertiary sources, is unacceptable as a source for facts in a research paper." Therefore it is useful to have citable sources. For students, academic researchers and writers, the sources provided in Wikipedia articles are extremely helpful. These articles are often the first source consulted because they are accessible, easily understandable and footnoted. The University of Pittsburgh University Library System advises to "use Wikipedia to become familiar with a topic or as a starting point for research" but "don't cite Wikipedia articles in your bibliography."[44]

• Not a great source. Okay for basic non controversial stuff which this obviously is not. Would be better to use a systematic review in a major journal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Mayo Clinic was a provider of information for Google's
  WP:MEDRS content. Blue Rasberry (talk)
  20:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this or this a reliable source for the claim that Jeanne Calment might be a fraud? They all appear to cite this paper. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The paper is unpublished. So doubtful.

b

} 00:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!Rockstonetalk to me! 04:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful in developing consensus if you could elaborate on your reasons here. Rockstonetalk to me! 05:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Can

Please provide the specific source, and content.

Web Sheriff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Related RSN discussions concerning college newspapers:

talk

) 18:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's the article 21 Savage detained by ICE agents from https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartan_daily_2019/7/ about Web Sheriff providing a forged birth certificate. // Liftarn (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable for this use case, since the article covers a legal controversy involving
  deprecated, but if you find the original Complex and XXL articles, you can cite and use them. — Newslinger talk
  08:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not used for anything about 21 Savage but about the company Web Sheriff. // Liftarn (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Taio Cruz, Web Sheriff, and MusicBrainz have nothing to do with San Jose State University or San Jose, California, so I wouldn't use The Spartan Daily for this. This article from TorrentFreak (RSP entry), "Web Sheriff Sent “Forged” Taio Cruz Birth Certificate to MusicBrainz", would be much better.​ — Newslinger talk 20:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

      I've also responded at Talk:Web Sheriff § NPOV concern. — Newslinger talk 00:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

      The reliability of the TorrentFreak article is now being discussed at § TorrentFreak for Web Sheriff. — Newslinger talk 23:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  In general, a

  notability. For anything other than school-related and local news, student publications should probably not be used as sources of facts. — Newslinger talk

  08:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Can articles from OrissaPost be used as sources in Wikipedia? I was unable to find any info on the editors, etc. in the website's About Us section. One of its articles, [45] was used to source content in the Ho people article, which I reverted because of it. Kindly advice. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be a sister-publication of

Orissa Post started publishing in April 2011

and from all appearances is a genuine (paper) broadsheet. So I would say that it is ok for facts that are subject of routine, non-controversial news reporting.

However, we should keep in mind its relatively small circulation of 35,000, niche target-market ("pro-people, youth-oriented approach") and ownership by a BJD MP (and son of an ex-CM of Odisha) Tathagata Satpathy and be careful when using it to establish notability of "youth-oriented" figures, or non-routine political news/analysis.

As for this edit in particular: statements by activists shouldn't be stated as facts in wikipedia's voice. Note though that West Bengal can be included in the list based on this ToI article that is already cited. That said, none of the existing sources for the sentence (ToI and Business Standard) is really high-quality. Surely we can find more scholarly sources or census-type reports for the claim? Abecedare (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I agree that West Bengal is mentioned in the first line of this source, but few paras down, the source writes "Ho is a very old tribal language. In some areas, it is called by other names like Kol, Kolha and Munda" which makes it confusing since Kol, Kolha and Munda are separate ethno-linguistic groups. This is making me doubt the source. Secondly, the inclusion of West Bengal and Assam in a sentence which ends with "they constitute around 10.5% of the Scheduled Tribes" is plain wrong since only in Jharkhand and Odisha, the population is that high. Assam doesn't have a Ho population as per census year 2011 and West Bengal has 23000+ but that consititutes a negligible 0.4% of the toal ST population of the state. I believe only the TOI source above can be kept since it talks about "Ho people". The other sources this and this are more "Ho language" centric. And the lead needs to be reworded as per Census 2011 here. It is full of unsourced and original researches.

As for this, changes I believe I'll keep "orissapost" citation only when a piece of text is not supported by more reliable sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the "reliability" of Orissa Post is a side-issue as far as the lede of Ho people is concerned. I agree that the current lede is difficult to parse and we should be able to improve both the sourcing and the writing. Can continue at the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This has been on here previously[1][2][3] and me and User:El komodos drago were wondering if anything had changed since it is now solely online and the last RFC was in 2013. ^{[Username Needed]} 17:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would it have?Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The fact that it is used as a source in thousands of articles and has not been challenged in the last six years is a pretty good indication that editors perceive it to be reliable. TFD (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• It is considered one of the most reliable press sources in the UK and less politically biased than many others, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The reason I asked Username Needed about it was because I was attempting to use it to cite existing content about the Tesco date system debacle (on the Jullian Calendar page which another editor has explained is the wrong place) and @

John Maynard Friedman: dismissed it as a tabloid that is no longer printed. They also said that the article was a throwaway remark, Tescos was a random supermarket, and Britain a mid-sized European country (and thus what the largest supermarket chain in Britain uses is trivia) so I've got a feeling he was using hyperbole. The editor has however clarified that I wasn't challenging the Indo as a wp:RS. El komodos drago (talk to me

) 15:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I also suggested listing it as there seemed to be a body of opinion that since it had gone online the headlines had become more clickbaity but I believe that Wikipedia does not allow the usage of headlines for citations, only body text. El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As I am named here, let me respond.

First, I did not and would not suggest that The Independent is anywhere near the depths to which the Daily Mail descended in terms of deliberate fabrication of stories. I do think that its journalistic standards have slipped and it is no longer it what used to be called the broadsheet category. But that is nowhere near enough to propose it be considered for 'better source needed' tagging. IMO, it is still an acceptable source, subject to appraisal.

But most important of all,

WP:RS

or not.

That is the last I have to say on this matter. El komodos drago has already wasted more than enough of our time pursuing this obsession. Stop it here, stop it now. --

talk

) 16:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Right well that was interesting. I am actually no longer pursuing it at all, only curious as to whether Friedman thought that it needed complete removal. I personally am not bothered about whether or not it is included, I only wanted to understand the relevant policies. I am also sorry to hear that I have wasted Friedman's time although I was actually no longer attempting to add it in and had unanswered messages on the talk page when he messaged me. With regards to the clear consensus, a perusal of the articles history does lead me to point out that 4 inexperienced editors (excluding me as I never attempted to add it, only source and clarify it) attempted to add it while 3 editors attempted to remove with the later being more experienced and right. (as an interesting side note, many of those 4 editors now have sock puppet warnings although I wouldn't have thought that multiple people attempting to add a news item to an article was a case of sock puppetry.) El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Just wondering what is thought of fan created content on YouTube such as this and this. The videos are created by "The Grand Tour Fans" and consists of fan supplied images and videos with some official video which I assume has been copied from official program sources. Some of it is correct, but it is fan generated. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally no, per even

WP:EL. I would guide using if there is reasonable attention given to fan-made content from reliable sources that suggest reliability. For example, in video games there's a channel Valve News Network that covers from the Valve Company in depth. Without other sources, it would not be usable. However, our set of RSes frequently call to this source and consider that source reasonable reliable, so we will use that source (but usually adding the name and using the third-party source alongside the video source to justify). --Masem (t

) 02:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Fan made content is exactly that: fan-made. It is not really easy to verify if the fan-made content used fact checking so its reliability can be questioned by anyone. Best to be on the safe side and not use it. I have seen fan-made content that has errors in their presentation too. So the problems can become compounded.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Would the New York Times be considered to have a conflict of interest with regard to 5G reporting? In a partnership with Verizon, they have created a "5G Journalism Lab". Verizon stands to make billions from 5G, and are now the first carrier to offer it.

(Background: This issue came to my attention with this RfC, which uses a piece from the NYT. The article does not claim to be sponsored nor does it mention the partnership.)

How should WP handle any reporting coming from the NYT/Verizon "5G Journalism Lab"? petrarchan47คุก 19:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable, but not
  WP:INDEPENDENT Not reliable on the topic of 5G but otherwise reliable until proven otherwise. What a fascinating question! After reading the first line of this thread my immediate thought was "of course not - a newspaper having an advertising, or even advertorial, arrangement does not presuppose the separation of church and state (sales and editorial)". However, as you rightly point out, this initiative is being composed by regular NYT staff writers and no disclosures of sponsored content are apparent, despite the fact Verizon - which we would otherwise characterize as having a COI - is receiving a quid pro quo. I would say, therefore, the New York Times does have a COI with regard to 5G reporting since its editorial operation presents the outward appearance of operating as an adjunct of the Verizon corporation's marketing department. (To be fair, I'm sure that's not the case, however, there is sufficient 5G reporting out there that I can't see any compelling reason why we shouldn't proceed with a preponderance of extra caution and avoid sourcing the NYT on this topic.) Chetsford (talk
  ) 19:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As well, the primary owner of the NYT, Carlos Slim, stands to make billions from the successful launch of 5G, with his ownership of American Movil. petrarchan47คุก 20:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I find that unconvincing. Except for The Guardian, all newspapers have always had wealthy owners with a variety of investment interests. The case of the Verizon content partnership is of a different character entirely. Chetsford (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable. For participants' benefit, the source in question can be found here. I don't see the COI. There's no question that Verizon would be conflicted if it purported to engage in independent journalism about 5G, as Verizon is a participant in the 5G market. But just because The New York Times has partnered with Verizon doesn't make it conflicted as well. There is no evidence that the Times has anything to gain or lose by reporting on 5G one way or another. Sure Verizon could try to exert influence its stories, but that's no different than the influence sources try to exert over journalists every day. The New York Times has an excellent reputation for not being beholden to its sources. It literally wrote the go-to book on journalism ethics--and we even cite it in our verifiability policy (
  R2 (bleep
  ) 19:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. We no longer live in an age where we can presume the separation between advertising and editorial exists because it has in the past, as Ira Basen writing at the University of Wisconsin's Center for Journalism Ethics [46] (among many others) explains:

"Sure Verizon could try to exert influence its stories, but that's no different than the influence sources try to exert over journalists every day." This is actually very different because it crosses the barrier between advertising and editorial, the type of content Basen notes. When Macy's takes out a display ad in the NYT they never interact with NYT journalists nor are they ever positioned as a co-equal partner in the process of creating content. In this case, the Times itself states "we’ve partnered with Verizon", this is not verbiage used to describe a Macy's display ad in the dead tree Times of yore. If the NYT has partnered with Verizon to create content on a specific subject (which it states it has) as opposed to simply accepting an ad that gets slapped wherever, and if Verizon has a COI on the subject, then by transitive relation the Times is also conflicted. Chetsford (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable, but just not necessary an independent source NYtimes not going to lose reliability due to having a potential COI, but that means that we should be wary of taking NYTimes stories on Verizon and/or G5 as independent. What that means for WP is 1) we can't just notability of an article dealing with G5 with only sources from the NYTimes and 2) it might come up in UNDUE discussions whether an opinion on 5G only sourced to NYTimes would be appropriate. But if we're using NYTimes to corroborate details of 5G with other sources, there should be no issue. --Masem (t) 20:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. FWIW there are plenty of reliable outlets that thought the subject was notable enough to mention themselves. Examples: [47][48][49][50][51] None of these sources take any issue with the Times' reporting (or raise any COI concerns).

R2 (bleep

) 20:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree with this and "Reliable, Not Independent" is a more perfect summary of what I imperfectly tried to communicate. Chetsford (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• It might be important to weigh in on R2's examples of sources that editors might suggest "corroborate", in this case, the NYTimes piece about Russia's 'anti-5G reporting'. Is a mere mention, sans criticism, considered corroboration? In my mind, it would entail an independent evaluation that came to the same conclusions. I don't immediately see anything resembling that in R2's sources (acknowledging R2 didn't claim outright to view the RS as corroborating). Making this clear for future editors would be helpful. petrarchan47คุก 18:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• R2 (bleep
  ) 20:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks. petrarchan47คุก 20:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable but not independent As an actual journalist (or rather, a guy with a degree in journalism), the New York Times is basically the gold standard on journalism and journalistic integrity. They have an excellent reputation for having a solid, impartial, and comprehensive news department and routinely write groundbreaking stories on the important issues. I do not think this partnership changes their reliability or throws their reporting on 5G into question without any actual evidence - so they are clearly reliable. I would probably suggest, in this one instance and out of an abundance of caution, using another source alongside the NYT or even in place of the NYT on this issue, but there is no indication they are not reliable on this subject. Toa Nidhiki05 20:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not independent and not to be used for extraordinary claims. So if they publish anything completely off the rails it shouldn't be used but I don't see that happening and I think it is reliable (for non-extraordinary claims). El komodos drago (talk to me) 09:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The original post is a bit misleading. There's no evidence that the source in question comes from the "NYT/Verizon '5G Journalism Lab'" According to the New York Times' annoucement, the lab isn't some sort of outlet for traditional print reporting about 5G; it's a program for the Times to develop new ways to use 5G in the newsroom and new formats for 5G devices.
  R2 (bleep
  ) 17:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand that initially and it does not impact my view of the non independence of the Times on this topic. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Juan Guaidó (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two articles from Reuters report that Brazil recognized Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela, but they use two different dates. Which is correct?

• "Brazil says it recognizes Venezuelan opposition leader as president" (Reuters, Jan. 12 2019)
• "Brazil recognizes Guaido as Venezuela's interim president" (Reuters, Jan 23 2019)

The relevance is did Brazil recognize Guaido as Acting President of Venezuela before the United States. According to Alonso Gurmendi a professor of international law at Universidad del Pacífico, the original story was misreported.[52], writing on Jan 14 2019, they supported Guaido as president (or speaker) of the National Assembly. He had not yet declared himself Acting President. In any case, all reliable sources now use the later date. For example: "Trump formally recognized Guaido minutes after the 35-year-old president of the Venezuela National Assembly declared himself the head of state. Countries including Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Panama quickly followed the U.S. lead."[53] (Bloomberg, Jan 23 2019)

TFD (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No to January 12, yes to January 23, but then maybe also sorta-kinda January 10? Going by official government press releases, on Jan 10 Brazil's government issued it's support for Guaido to "assume the presidency" and declared Maduro to be illegitimate. But it was on the 23rd that they seem to have made it explicit that he is the president. They then made it super clear a couple days later. [54][55][56][57]. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)