Wikipedia talk:BLACKLIST
 | This redirect was nominated for retargeting on 12 November 2019. The result of the discussion was retarget. |
kavkazcenter.com
edit- kavkazcenter.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
On 1 March 2011, the site was blacklisted after this request.
Motivation: the requester alleged the site to be "radical Islamic" which he wrote between citation marks ("). Why does he not simply say it is radical Islamic without such citation marks? (Apparently he is not sure about his claim 'radical Islamic'.) Granted that the site is probably giving a very colored, one-sided, ('radical') view on many topics: so what? That should result in the site being not accepted as reliable source in many cases--except perhaps in the case that we want to refer just to those biased opinions of them! (as a colleague said, 7May2015: "it fails WP:RS for anything except sourcing claims by the rebels").
On page Wikipedia,Reliable sources,Noticeboard, version 1 March 2011 section 12 (Kavkaz Center- everyone can help!), the consensus is again that the site in many cases (!) is not reliable, which obviously is quite likely the case. But the requester also called the site "awful", and as I said: that's not a good reason for blacklisting. Herostratus then advised to ask for spam-blacklisting, which seems to me an incorrect advise, but is was followed up and it resulted in blacklisting.
In March 2015, a colleague asked for whitelisting, on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#www.kavkazcenter.com. Dirk Beetstra reacted: make your request for whitelisting on WT:BLACKLIST (which is here).
The strange thing is, that, while blacklisted (for presumably wrong reasons, namely "not reliable"), the site is nevertheless today being used as source in Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian Civil War#Chechnya and Russia--which seems contradictory to me. If the main argument for (inappropriately) blacklisting was: 'unreliable', than the site should not serve as source in an article except perhaps on very specific statements. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, you misunderstood that. I explained a response from Stifle, which said that requests for whitelisting a complete domain have to be on WT:BLACKLIST (which is here, but this should have redirected you to the spam-blacklist talkpage; I explained that at the right point already), and for specific links should be on the whitelist. The 'whitelisting of the whole domain' has been denied, so now the only option is to whitelist specific links:
Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
