This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
To answer this question: Global Research is generally unreliable (it has a relevant WP:RSP entry and is even on the WP blacklist). It's possible that some of its articles were more reality-based than others, but it is also notorious for the promotion of conspiracy theories and Russian and Chinese political propaganda. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with the WP-global cleanup and tagging so come back to this. These are also only blog posts from what I see. Is there any reason that particular author should be considered credible enough for his opinions to be WP:DUE or considered reliable (WP:RS)? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PaleoNeonate: I'm from Vermont and as far as I know, Greg Guma is a reputable investigative journalist and author. A partial bio and list of some of his pieces can be found on the VT Digger site. A longer version of his bio is on his LinkedIn page. I think it's fair to say that Guma comes at news and current events from a particular political perspective, but I've never seen anything to indicate that he engages in deception or falsehoods, or does anything else that would call his reputation for honesty into question.
I don't believe there's anything in the cited sources that's false or misleading, but I'm willing to look for better ones if this is an issue.
Sorry for the delay. I looked at the recent changes and agree that they are improvements. Some sources are old, but so is the case. About Global Research, it's unfortunately typical for grassrooting propaganda sites to invite contributors that may not even be aware that their own reputation is being exploited (and may even possibly end up tainted by association once the publisher becomes notoriously disreputable)... Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 16:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
