Wikipedia talk:Reliable South African Sources

RS

Hello TapticInfo, as an editor who's laser focused on the South African side of the encyclopedia I noticed that Independent Online and TimesLIVE where identified as marginally reliable or no consensus (yellow) from generally reliable (green) by the CiteHighliter script, and when I reached out to the script writer (here), I was told that the domains were moved here but I do not see any discussion where consensus to move the sites was reached. TimesLIVE was deemed reliable by admin Dodger67 approximately 11 years ago here (Park3r raised concern about IOL here) and consensus was reached last year making the aforementioned sites and The South African reliable at WP:NPPSG citing this discussion. After creating the articles Nandipha Magudumana and Tracking Thabo Bester I noticed that GroundUp suddenly turned green out of nowhere and it was never assessed at WP:RS/Noticeboard, was it because of the airing of Tracking Thabo Bester on Showmax and how they gave information on apprehending the most searched individual in 2023 in South Africa? I truly think you're doing a great job but wiki is a collaborative site where users come together to work on a certain task, so my question is why was the above-mentioned sites moved from reliable to no consensus? I'll be on the lookout for your response Thank you. dxneo (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Sorry for the late response, life has been crazy.

My intention with all “Usable but be cautious” sources are that they are still green, just that certain articles from those sources might be biased. TapticInfo (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Those sources have been assessed at WP:RS/Noticeboard as mentioned above. So a sole decision going against multiple users' consensus is not the way to go. Would you consider moving the sources back to "reliable" then consider opening an assessment discussion at WP:RS/Noticeboard to reach (new) consensus? dxneo (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello I come back I think theofficialsacharts.co.za should be listed under generally reliable sources as it issues musical charts and updates on music news and releases. Thoughts? dxneo (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Again TapticInfo, I think we seriously need to discuss the reliability of these sources. It's been over seven months with no response and I'd really hate to boldly rearrange the sources myself. Please do reach out. dxneo (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I am so sorry for the lack of response. Please Provide me a list all sources you think need reevaluation or to be added, I will sort out the assessment with WP:RS/Noticeboard TapticInfo (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• There are some things I find odd concerning identification. Some sources are highlited green (reliable) and some are yellow (marginally reliable). Some sources were never assessed at WP:RS/N, but they are highlited green, which begs the question, how and why?

• SABC News is one of the biggest news provider and it has been televised for decades, but they aren't reliable? How is that?

• eNCA too is just like SABC News.

Most trusted news sources

• This is according to News24, which is at the top of the list, but I cannot find it anywhere in the list of reliable sources, why? News24 is published by Media24.

Reliable sources

• Why is GroundUp reliable? I believe this was after the Thabo Bester/Dr Nandipha saga. Yes, it's a non-profit organization, but that doesn't mean it's reliable.
• I barely use the following sites (except Mail & Guardian), I'm not gonna touch them for now.

Usable but be cautious

• TimesLIVE – I find it disturbing that this isn't green when it's sister paper Sunday Times is green and they are both owned by Arena Holdings.
• Although IOL is under this section, it is highlighted green because it made rounds on on WP:RS/N
• The South African is marginally reliable per WP:RSP

---

I think this sums it up for now. Please review the sources or maybe assess them at WP:RS/N. dxneo (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)