Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

March 2013 cleanup
I'm doing what I can, slowly, to push through this list. Many of these uses are redundant to other references in these articles; whenever that is the case, I'm simply removing the IPR citation. Otherwise, I'm attempting to replace the reference with something more reliable. Only if I cannot find a replacement source in a better-than-cursory search (or, obviously, should there be irresolvable BLP concerns) will I simply cull the IPR-cited claims. I don't anticipate replacing any IPR refs with cn templates or the like.

As an aside, many of these articles are terrible, and are in terrible shape. IPR is by no means the only dubiously-reliable source being used for US Third Party biographies. However, I'm not really striving to rebuild 100+ articles at this time, so unless it's very convenient, I'll probably leave other cleanup issues untouched. One problem at a time, I suppose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's Not a "Cleanup;" It May be a Pogrom
IPR is neither "unedited" (it has multiple volunteer editors -- does that sound familiar?) nor a "link aggregator." It is a news site featuring material (some original, some consisting of a link and summary to material elsewhere, all hand-generated, not auto-aggregated) on third party and independent political candidates. I note that Squeamish Ossifrage asserts that "many of these articles are in terrible shape," but offers not so much as a single example of e.g. a questionable factual claim in the text of an IPR article (yes, the comments section is a zoo). Thomas L. Knapp (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't shoot the messenger. I wasn't involved in the discussions that got IPR put on the large scale clean-up list; indeed, I'm not sure I was even active for them. I'm just working on clearing out a backlogged task. But consensus at RSN came down heavily against IPR. If you'd like to try to see if consensus has changed, that's great. I have no horse in that race, to be honest. For my part, I'm trying to avoid cutting statements whenever possible. Most of the uses of IPR that I've unilaterally culled have been citing statements that were also referenced to a second source. In those cases, no information was lost by the reference removal. In the vast bulk of other articles I've gotten to so far, I've been able to find alternative sources for the same referenced claims. My assertion that these articles need a lot more love than I'm giving them is not based on the fact that they (used to) cite IPR, it's that they're in objectively pretty terrible shape and I don't have the time to improve them beyond my current focus on this cleanup task. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been using (and contributing occasional edits to) Wikipedia for years, and I don't know what this "RSN" thing is that came to a "consensus" that the premier news source on independent and third party politics in the US shouldn't be used as a Wikipedia source on independent and third party politics in the US. Thomas L. Knapp (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliability
IPR is one of the few organisations that actively report of third party news and information.

It is not a link aggregator as it provides its own unique content and reporting on multiple parties and the issues occuring in them.

IPR over the years has become reliable, and I would like us to consider removing it from being unreliable as it is becoming more and more as the most unbiased source of third party news and information. Dieselkeough (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This talk page is to discuss the cleanup operation. If you want to contest the decision that IPR is unreliable, you will need to start a new thread at WP:RSN. Note that being unbiased is not the same thing as being reliable. 25stargeneral (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)