Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources

Pinoy Mountaineer

Now, that there is a discussion page for Philippine Related sources, I would discuss if pinoymountaineer.com is a RS or not? (courtesy link)

Ivan Henares, one of the site's author is (or was) an assistant professor at Asian Institute of Tourism and is the UNESCO National Commission Secretary General (Source)

Gideon Lasco, another author wrote articles/opinion piece for Inquirer before.

I personally think this is a good reliable sources for mountains in the Philippines. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoymountaineer is broadly reliable as a source regarding the immediately observable characteristics of the mountains covered - the height, the level of difficulty, the trail characteristics, flora and fauna, geography, hydrology, administration, and so on - the only caveat being that some of these are timebound - things like administration, flora and fauna, hydrology, and trail characteristics change over time. The site itself is aware of this, and provides occasional updates. But the wiki writer should in those cases probably indicate the time-bound nature of the description. Something like "Public access to Mount Kabundukan is administered by the Department of Environemnt and Natural Resources, which sets limits on the number of persons admitted to the trail as of June 2024. Pinoymountaineer rarely oversteps its bounds, and even things like descriptions of mountaineering sector events, obituaries of mountaineers, and discussions of mountaineering-related policy are generally sound although it is not the ideal source for such things. The main specific problem is that information about things like security (i.e. the presence of local armed groups) and local controversies may not be reliable, but only in the sense that they are written by non-experts who may not have all the facts on-hand. - Chieharumachi (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMNI/DZAR?

Would it hurt to put Sonshine and its (former) radio arm DZAR in the GU list? We have extensive evidence about the antics of that so-called "news" outlet, on top of Apollo Quiboloy himself being alleged to have done some nasty stuff as well, if anything. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards splitting the classification for the said outlets - not just SMNI and DZAR but also the entire Sonshine Radio network (or what's left of it) plus affiliated republishers like North Central Luzon News Media which was created from the former SMNI News North Central Luzon bureau - into two components (compare Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#New York Post with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#New York Post Entertainment): either additional considerations or generally unreliable with regards to coverage on Mr. Quiboloy, his organization and connected political and business interests while I'm leaning towards no consensus for other topics. -Ian Lopez @ 13:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have consolidated DZAR and SMNI and reclassified the relevant media outlets in this revision. -Ian Lopez @ 07:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two Chinoy dailes

Two Chinoy dailes – United Daily News and World News – should be re-evaluated and details/comments must be added if warranted. These do not seem to be 100% neutral, as claimed by the infoboxes of their respective articles. United Daily News should be used with caution in dealing with Taiwan-related topics (being "pro-Taipei"). Similar approach applies to World News in relation to China-related topics (being "pro-Beijing"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that were to be the case, their classification can be split: additional considerations with regards to China, Taiwan, the ongoing territorial dispute and related personalities and entities while for other topics, no consensus. Inputs from Chinese Filipino contributors are more than welcome since they're more familiar with the said outlets (assuming that they get their info from them and/or use them as references). -Ian Lopez @ 13:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have split and reclassified the relevant media outlets in this revision. -Ian Lopez @ 07:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PeoPlaid

Regarding a discussion about PeoPlaid, and various attempts stating it as an unreliable source, I feel like we should develop a consensus regarding the website, what do you think? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN would be a better venue.

It's clearly a blog, for which they have a disclaimer [1]. --Hipal (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checkers in the Philippines

There are several fact-checking organizations as these entities aim to curb disinformation on topics like elections and beyond. May I suggest to include these fact-checkers on the list of source and cross-check their reliability. Thanks. GerryYabes (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry, you are more than welcome to add such resources since they're within the scope of the page - assuming that such resources have yet to be added (Rappler is already on the list of sources under Media Outlets > National for example). Please don't forget to add their affiliations. -Ian Lopez @ 11:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing some sources to "Generally Reliable"

I recently added GMA as a generally reliable source. I suggest we should change the following sources as "Generally Reliable" or "Presumed Generally Reliable" as it is often used in many PH related articles.

The sources I'm talking about are:

ABS-CBN
TV5 (News5)
Philippine Star
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Daily Tribune
Bombo Radyo
Manila Bulletin
The Manila Times
Manila Standard

Any objections or concerns? Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have little to no objections to the reclassification provided that any errors and/or omissions in a (presumably) reliable outlet can be clarified/filled by other (presumably) reliable entities. -Ian Lopez @ 07:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just added add "presumed to be generally reliable" in the mean time. Until someone objects or add concerns Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: LionhearTV

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Move discussion to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: LionhearTV Royiswariii Talk! 00:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want your comments about the reliability of LionhearTV, I can't determine whether it is reliable or not, on New Page Sources, the Lionheartv is in the unreliable section, but, despite of that some editors still using this source in all Philippine Articles. So let's make a vote:

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

Royiswariii Talk! 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate. The Philippines has plenty of WP:RS to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:

LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as DailyPedia and Philippine Entertainment.

In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the RAWR Awards, which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ABS-CBN and GMA Network.[2][3] Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees.[4]

A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the Bini (group) talk page in September 2024 (see Talk:Bini (group)/Archive 1 § LionhearTV as a reliable source). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 52 § Lionheartv) and the WP:RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 452 § LionhearTV). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about SMNI, which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented, It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.

At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as unreliable on Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide#The Philippines as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN.

AstrooKai (Talk) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? AstrooKai (Talk) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. Borgenland (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:

LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)
Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024)
LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)
Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)

These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:

LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)
Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024)
LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024)
Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)

I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of churnalism. AstrooKai (Talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AstrooKai, @Borgenland, @Howard the Duck, if you don't mind we can move this discussion to Noticeboard to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. Royiswariii Talk! 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Borgenland (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). AstrooKai (Talk) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.