Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources#rfc 5B5D1E9

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

Ivan Henares, one of the site's author is (or was) an [https://ait.upd.edu.ph/faculty-and-staff-ivan-anthony-henares/ assistant professor] at Asian Institute of Tourism and is the UNESCO National Commission Secretary General ([https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/2024/3/14/unesco-commission-seeks-probe-on-chocolate-hills-resort-s-possible-violations-1704 Source])

Gideon Lasco, another author wrote articles/opinion piece for [https://opinion.inquirer.net/byline/gideon-lasco 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)

: 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)

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)

: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)

::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)

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)

: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)

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

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)

:WP:RSN would be a better venue.

:It's clearly a blog, for which they have a disclaimer [https://peoplaid.com/2018/10/29/disclaimer/#google_vignette]. --Hipal (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

: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)

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)

: 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)

::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)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740135721}}

{{closed rfc top|result=Move discussion to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: LionhearTV Royiswariii Talk! 00:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}

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)

: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)

• 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 [https://www.dailypedia.net/ DailyPedia] and [https://phentertainment.net/ Philippine Entertainment].

::In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the [https://www.lionheartv.net/category/rawr-awards/ RAWR Awards], which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ABS-CBN and GMA Network.[https://corporate.abs-cbn.com/newsroom/news-releases/2021/12/17/abs-cbn-rawr-awards-2021?lang=en][https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/content/815111/gma-network-is-station-of-the-year-at-the-2021-rawr-awards/story/] Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees.[https://corporate.abs-cbn.com/newsroom/news-releases/2021/12/17/abs-cbn-rawr-awards-2021?lang=en]

::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, {{tq|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.|quotes=yes}}

::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)

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

:::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)

: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)

::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)

:::@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)

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

::::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)

{{closed rfc bottom}}

Context: Pasig mayor Vico Sotto's accusation [https://www.facebook.com/VicoSotto/posts/day-32-of-45-pasig-contractor-challenges-vico-sotto-to-release-p10b-city-hall-co/1251275679700101/ on his Facebook page] regarding several articles of the Daily Tribune (specifically those authored by their columnist Neil Alcober) with biased/misleading headlines that seem to tarnish his good governance image. His camp once told the columnist that the contracts for the new Pasig City Hall are readily available on the Internet, yet the columnist apparently did not bother to check those. Sotto also claims some details in Alcober's article are either misleading or have inaccuracies.

It is worth noting that the paper changed hands in 2018, from the respected journalist Ninez Cacho-Olivares to "Concept and Information Group". Folks who lived in the 2000s (either childhood or adulthood) may still recall that Cacho-Olivares defended her publication from pro-Arroyo forces during the 2006 state of emergency in the Philippines. I suspect the 2018 change of ownership changed the editorial alignment of the paper, but that's just my hunch.

Should the Daily Tribune be classified as:

1. Generally reliable
2. Additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable
4. Deprecated

If possible, apply the method used in some listed sources under WP:RSP#Sources, by splitting the the Daily Tribune into two: Daily Tribune of 2000-18 (Cacho-Olivares) era and the Daily Tribune of the era since 2018 (Concept and Information Group era). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:This could very well be a one-time thing with Neil Alcober in particular, but if we were to split the reliability of the Daily Tribune between its two ownership eras, there needs to be more proof of biases and misreporting under the current era that was not present before. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 09:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if anyone could elucidate me on this, whether this site or sister sites may be reliable sources. I'm not familiar with any of them (though to be fair, I'm not familiar with Filipino sites). Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Can you drop their sites here? AstrooKai (Talk) 12:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::sorry, just saw this reply. Here they are: https://agcpowerholdingscorp.com/

::Specifically, they include BluPrint, Lifestyle Asia, The Game, The Business Manual, and Modern Parenting. Also seems to publish Filipino versions of magazines like Rolling Stone Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::AGC Power Holdings Corp. oversees several entertainment brands and companies under its subsidiaries, including the magazines you mentioned. Based on what I know, there doesn’t appear to be any reason to consider them unreliable. Unless the content is clearly opinion-based, I would generally regard them as reliable sources. AstrooKai (Talk) 04:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the input, I really appreciate it! - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::No problem! Tbh, we need to start classifying more sources. AstrooKai (Talk) 04:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's always been helpful for sure when checking non- English sources to be able to swing by regional WikiProjects - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I will initiate another discussion here to get started classifying more sources, beginning with the magazines by AGC. AstrooKai (Talk) 05:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Upon checking Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Sources, I realized that it only lists down news outlets. So, it got me wondering: do we even generate consensus in classifying and listing non-news sources, such as magazines? AstrooKai (Talk) 05:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)