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]