Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources | Noticeboard

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Newimpartial (talk | contribs) at 20:24, 29 September 2021 (Undid revision 1046928599 by Eievie (talk)Don't edit discussions that have been archived. Thx). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 330←Archive 332Archive 333Archive 334Archive 335Archive 336→Archive 340

Washington Post and CNN

WP:SNOW CLOSED
Not going to happen. Sceptre (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Suggest the reliability rating of these outlets be reduced given recent retraction of Georgia Sec of State story based on undisclosed anonymous unreliable sources. Pkeets (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
No. As already stated when you asked this question the first time, we expect reliable sources to retract and correct articles; that's what responsible authors and editors do when they make mistakes.
It's also odd that you have asked this same question in two venues without even giving notice in the first venue so editors who commented there can also comment here. I strongly recommend you drop a notice there both as a courtesy to those editors and also to prevent confusion with the same discussion occurring simultaneously in two different places. ElKevbo (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
No, per ElKevbo. François Robere (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
No but... this really is a major screwup and should be in the WP article as it has been widely covered. We have a widely circulated quote that the WP could not confirm yet treated it as if it were. It effectively means anyone can reasonably question a WP claim of "sources said X" absent evidence that the WP has first hand knowledge. That is a big deal especially since it gives a lot of fuel to the friary claims that the many in the media were more interested in publishing negative stories about Trump than actually being impartial etc (note, that last part is my OR with all the associated WP limitations). This is one of the reasons why I think Masem is correct in that Wikipedia really needs to be more cautious about RECENT political news. Springee (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Given the specifics out of the WaPost correction/redaction [1] - where Trump did not use a few specific passages, but used phrases which have, on broad terms, very similar meaning, the story itself doesn't change as much (in that Trump still urged this official to look for dishonesty in the GA election) and more about the reliance on specific quotes claimed on the call. In other words, there was still corroboration among sources this call was made, and its general contents, just not its specific quotes which the WA Post got wrong on first publication. --Masem (t) 13:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what to do, because . . . My biggest concern is -- was this a screw up? Or a system designed to allow this to happen? There's a reason courts don't allow hearsay. Per the OP, apparently the WaPo and CNN do. The same for ABC[2].Adoring nanny (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not think we need two separate discussions on CNN.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  • When a news source issues a retraction thats generally a positive indicator for their reliability, not negative. nableezy - 15:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • WaPo and CNN misquoted the president's words, and later issued a correction (something extremist right-leaning media never does) but the story itself is factual; the ex-president abused his presidential authority in an attempt to unduly influence people working for SoS Raffensperger. This is the proverbial nothingburger, albeit a raw-meat nothingburger a certain type will love. ValarianB (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No It's fairly common for major news media to run misleading and dishonest stories in order to promote a political agenda, then retract them when it no longer matters. They did this most effectively before the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, promoting false information about Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of Weapons of Mass Desctruction and links to al Qaeda. (I disagree btw with Masem's view that what Trump was quoted as saying and what he actually said were substantially the same.) We have to accept that misinformation will creep into Wikipedia stories because these are after all our best sources for current events. However, policy and guidelines can help us in reducing this:
  • Most of the news sources do not actually report the information as fact, but quote unnamed sources. In those cases we should use intext citation, for example, "according to unnamed sources speaking to the Washington Post."
  • Where one or very few news sources have reported a story, we should assume that other sources consider it too unreliable or unimportant to report and hence per WP:WEIGHT, we should leave it out of the article.
  • Per RECENTISM, we should be cautious in including recent news and should wait to see how significant and reliable the information is.
  • We should also realize that there is a hierarchy of reliability and use the best sources available. Expert sources are better than articles written by journalists and peer-reviewed sources are better still.
  • We should avoid using conclusions by journalists when they are outside their area of expertise. Journalists are experts in reporting what happened yesterday or today, not in what happened years ago or in political or sociological analysis.
TFD (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Strongly agree with this part: Most of the news sources do not actually report the information as fact, but quote unnamed sources. In those cases we should use intext citation, for example, "according to unnamed sources speaking to the Washington Post." Not only is TFD correct, but this also needs prominence in a guideline. What is the best place for it, and how would one go about achieving that prominence? Adoring nanny (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No. If your mother . . .[3] goes triple for us because we have time -- WP, etc. should be handled, thus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No. For one thing, you're wrong on the facts (the story was corrected, not retracted; the substance of the story was accurate - the corrected wording of the quotes changes nothing about the story's conclusions.) For another, we don't expect even the best sources to never make mistakes; what's important is that they be willing to issue corrections, as in this case, and that those errors not form a pattern that suggests systemic issues. Since the correction doesn't affect the thrust of the story, it's hard to see how it could be systemic in this case. --Aquillion (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Of course not - As ElKevbo and Aquillion already wrote, retractions and corrections are normal part of processes in reliable sources, —PaleoNeonate – 16:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Content issues are being dealt with on the article talk page, conduct issues are being dealt with at ANI; nothing to do here. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Two editors make arguments about this reference handbook, Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals and seem to insist it is unrealiable and/or WP:FRINGE. The book status is at an impasse on the Talk page. I can find no deviation from Wikipedia RS / MAINSTREAM criteria, this needs commenting please.

Lorandos, Demosthenes, Ph.D., J.D.; Baker, Amy, Ph.D; Campbell, Terence, Ph.D.; Freeman, Bradley, M.D.; Lowrance, Hon. Michele, J.D. (2013). Slovenko, Ralph, B.E., LL.B., M.A., Ph.D.; Bernet, William, M.D.; et al. (eds.). Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals. Springfield, Il: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, LTD. ISBN 978-0-398-08881-1. LCCN 2013011346.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

A Google Books sample is available. More than one option may apply.

Editors feel the content should be excluded or marginalized. The discussion about admitting the book is being held here, your opinions are appreciated. @Arllaw, Slp1:

--Frobozz1 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Frobozz, could you please explain what this means? "I am the owner of this resource: Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals".[4] Are you saying that you own the copyright, or just that you own a copy?
In my opinion the book pushes a fringe theory that is often found in divorce lawsuits but pretty much never used by any mental health professional (it isn't in DSM-5) outside of being a paid expert witness in a divorce lawsuit. It fails WP:MEDRS but would be OK -- with attribution -- on a page about a legal topic instead of a medical topic.
In the Parental alienation article, the claim "The American Psychiatric Association (APA) added a relational problem into the DSM-5 which causes PA but chose to include only the concept of PA into the new manual without using the words 'parental alienation' " appears to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It should be removed along with any other claims not directly supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Certainly. It is an expensive professional reference which I own. I hold no connection to the content, authorship, editing, publishing, copyrighting, etc. I own the resource (book) only—and only a copy thereof. I didn't consider my choice of words would weigh so heavily; the point was to differentiate my citations from those of casual Internet search results of the book. --Frobozz1 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
RE: The statement [was taken directly from the book], there is no WP:SYNTH. The statement comes from the Associate Director of the American Psychological Association, Dr. William E. Narrow and his committe assembled for the purpose of organizing the DSM-5 relational disorders:
This is what the book in question states to be a fact, so the book itself is being RfC'd for factual accuracy. You may not have known this without reading it, but that quote in question is on the Google Books sample.
The claim that this theory is fringe leaves what seems like a circular problem. A theory in psychology is assumed to be WP:FRINGE while the theory's manual cites that the WP:MAINSTREAM APA Associate Director acknowledges that the concept of the theory has been published in the APA's DSM-5?
The paradox is that a mainstream authority is stating that he has acknowledged a fringe theory "in concept" but not "in name" within the DSM-5; while that same APA director has collaborated on and published a peer-reviewed article which advances a known cause for the theory "in name":
The circular logic cycle seems to only be broken by a substantiated and cited claim that Director Narrow did not make the statement, IOW; that the book in question is not WP:RS as a "factual reference". Even so, should such a referrence be found, it still leaves Director Narrow's choice to collaborate with the "fringe theory" researchers and publish in peer review as fact that an APA disorder "Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress" will causes the fringe theory "Parental Alienation" by name.
Lastly is the consideration that other peer reviewed researchers have published the exact same conclusion, corroborating a professional consensus.[1]: 143 

I hope I have painted the paradox well. Thank you. --Frobozz1 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If the question is supposed to be, "Can this book be cited as a reference", although as Guy Macon it is problematic as a reference, it was actually being referenced within the article -- so any suggestion that it was being excluded from the article is false. If you look at their publication record, the authors of the book have been anything but quiet in subsequent years, and some of their subsequent works are also used as references within the Wikipedia article.
The actual objection here seems to be that some editors objected to the introduction of an incorrect claim into the article, predicated upon a fringe claim made within this specific book. The first question is thus one of whether incorrect claims, not supported by any references, should be placed within an article, the answer being "no". The second is whether the material inserted within the article is in fact supported by the referenced book. As documented on the talk page the answer is "no". The matter can thus be resolved without even reaching the question of the book's quality as a reference.
More broadly, leaving aside that the book is a work of advocacy, it is also at this point eight years old. (See WP:MEDBOOK). Falling back on an eight-year-old book instead of up-to-date material seems to highlight how unsuccessful the authors have been in convincing others to support their claims or join their theories. WP:MEDSCI: "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field". Getting a claim published does not of itself mean that the claim should be included within the Wikipedia. The concern voiced by editors is that it would not be appropriate to fall back on one aging advocacy book to make fringe theories dominant on the article page, and less so given the many more recent and better sources that address the same subject matter. Arllaw (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
arllaw the statement [was taken directly from the book]. "The second is whether the material inserted within the article is in fact supported by the referenced book" — Yes, on Page 498.
Are you reading replies at all?

References

  1. ^ Whitcombe, Sue (2013). "Psychopathology and the conceptualization of mental disorder: The debate around the inclusion of parental alienation in DSM-5" (PDF). Counselling Psychology Review. 28 (3): 6–1. Retrieved 30 October 2019.
Here are two book reviews.

Overall, this is a comprehensive book on the concept of parental alienation and provides excellent historical perspective, definitions, cases and legal underpinnings. The book does read biased at times, as the authors write in an impassioned style about this concept. For example, many of the cases described do not actually include all of the facts of the case in favor of placing blame on one parent. The most interesting chapters are those outlining the new Brazilian law and the attempts to include DSM-5 and ICD-10 as these describe relatively unknown processes and do so in a comprehensive and fascinating way. Even though scientific reliability and validity are not fully established, nonetheless, it is clear that active alienation occurs in some custodial and visitation disputes. This book is a valuable resource for any mental health professional, attorney or judge who works in this area. It would also be valuable reading for mental health professionals in their clinical work with children and adolescents who have divorcing or divorced parents. This book is a welcome addition to our understanding and to the literature on parental alienation.

This book, which advances efforts to establish consistency in terminology, classification of, and standards for PA, is a valuable resource for clinical and forensic mental health professionals and for legal and social service professionals and their trainees who work with children of divorce and their parents.

Long story short, the book is reliable, but, where it is used, opinions that are contradictory may be WP:DUE per WP:MEDSCI. JBchrch (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Guy Macon, who are you talking to?--JBchrch (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Do a search on this talk page for the phase "the consideration that other peer reviewed researchers". Look at the references cited in that comment. Then go to Parental alienation. Search the article for "theories of parental alienation that have been proposed". Look at the citations supporting that claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Option 1, 2, and 3 By definition it is a reliable source. Every user in this discussion has said it is reliable. There was even a psychotherapist who said it was reliable.

--Hotornotquestionmarknot (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hotornotquestionmarknot... this is your first edit in 3 and a half years. Based on your previous edits you are very interested in this same topic. How did you find this discussion? Why was your first edit recently to say 'Hi' to Frobozz1? [5]Slp1 (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I have really been editing only two months and try to soak it all up. My hope is to resolve this finally and get it properly classified on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
This is a professional reference book, as the reviews state, and as the discussion on the site has gained consensus for. However, there are exactly two editors who have made a determination with no source that the content is not appropriate. That is a fine position. We as editors are not permitted to have a position, however. We are required to locate WP:RS to make our points. This is the only purpose of this RfC: Answer the question. To date, the book review above is the only criticism: in some areas such as court hearings it omits opposing arguments.
  1. If this book is misleading, that is very important to all the victims who may be hurt.
  2. If this book is authoritative and reliable, that will also be important to the victims who may be saved. The Wiki community has the voices to answer this finally. I invite broad opinions and consensus as to the status of this alleged legal/clinical reference handbook.
Thank you for your time and consideration. @AnnSec, Viewmont Viking, Lova Falk, Beyond My Ken, Shrinkie89, Memills, WLU, Pttno, Dmcemaverick, DrPax, Bali ultimate, Yohananw, Jaydubya93, Krb19, Skythrops, Luis, Linda Rosa, Ignytemedia1, Find bruce, Strawberry, Shawnwygant, Hotornotquestionmarknot:--Frobozz1 (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I’m getting a strong feeling that Frobozz1 is WP:NOTHERE and is trying to use wikipedia to further their professional or personal goals rather than work collaboratively to build an encyclopedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The ping list is both sides of psychological and legal discourse. Clearly my "opponents" were included. Clearly I am not advocating one side or another. Clearly there is an immense POV problem through years of personal attachment to one article, which casual editing cannot surmount. But create the wall, or opine. I asked for the latter.--Frobozz1 (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
"Clearly I am not advocating one side or another."' Clearly, that is not true. Clearly, you are a POV SPA. Clearly, you are here to RiGHTGREATWRONGS. Clearly, you are NOTHERE with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Clearly, you should be sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Collider

I stumbled upon Talk:Alien (film), where some editors discuss the reliability of Collider. It is concluded there that it is a blog and not a reliable source. However they seem to have an editorial team, and has an extensive fact-check policy. This and this is also a green light to trustworthiness. What do you think? GeraldWL 03:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. — Newslinger talk 04:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what general consensus (while not definitive) tends towards it not being reliable in previous RS/N conversations they're referring to over there, but the only discussion about Collider's reliability was a fairly recent one about a report on the appearance of Andrew Garfield and Kirsten Dunst on Spider-Man: No Way Home, and it was only notified on RS/N (here). The many discussions about it can be seen at Talk:Spider-Man: No Way Home and its archive, but this whole issue isn't solved yet. Other than that, Collider is generally considered a very reliable source when it comes to films and TV shows, and constantly used in film-related articles. —El Millo (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Facu-el Millo, thanks for that! I was doing Jojo Rabbit which has vital Collider refs, and panicked when I saw the Alien talk page. Relived to know it's reliable. GeraldWL 05:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome! —El Millo (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I would just be wary of any potentially contentious claims about BLP or the like - they just don't have that strong a reputation - but that said, I've never seen Collider even go towards that type of direction. They are about how films/etc. are made and avoid gossip, hence why they are reliable. --Masem (t) 05:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

A unreliable source tag as been added to the lead of Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran [6]. The reference supports the statement "also known as Israeli–Sunni Coalition". The reference is to an article from the The Washington Institute for Near East Policy [7]. This phrase is the title of this article from this source a reliable source for the use of the phrase "also known as Israeli–Sunni Coalition". I am asking specifically in regard to supporting the use of the phrase and nothing else.

I have not reverted the addition (or made any reverts to the article), this article is discretionary sanctions and has a 1RR restriction, so I wish to have clear support before asking the editor to remove the tag.  // Timothy :: talk  08:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a partisan think-tank, but a well known one. It shouldn't be used for facts, but can be used for its opinions (attributed). If it is using the phrase, I think that is good evidence that the phrase is used, and it is fine in this context , unattributed. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)user disallowed from commenting here per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

The reference is NOT The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, it is Fikra Forum

an initiative of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The views expressed by Fikra Forum contributors are the personal views of the individual authors, and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute, its staff, Board of Directors, or Board of Advisors.​​

Therefore it is an opinion of a named individual and whether it is useful or not depends on an assessment of that individual as an "expert". Abdullah Sawalha is described as "Founder and Director of the Center for Israel Studies in Amman, Jordan." and I would recommend locating a better source for the intended usage.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

So you’re saying that the author, Abdullah Sawalha, is a subject matter expert but you wouldn’t use them? Or you would use them but you would keep in mind that we always want to upgrade to the highest quality source imaginable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Who said he is a subject matter expert? nableezy - 15:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
"Founder and Director of the Center for Israel Studies in Amman, Jordan.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I stand by "I would recommend locating a better source for the intended usage" regardless of whether one considers him an expert. And "better" does not mean "highest quality source imaginable".Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I’m glad you stand by it, I agree with you. We should always be striving to include better sources regardless of whether or not the one we currently have is adequate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok? And? He made a little known think tank that isnt cited by much of anyone. Again, who said he was an expert in the field? nableezy - 15:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Totally inappropriate. Theres no reason to treat this as a battleground. Either engage with basic respect and civility or don’t engage at all. If you aren’t mature enough to make that decision the community will make it for you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
In what world was that immature or a battleground? You made an appeal to authority when the person isnt actually an authority. I asked you a question as to why somebody who made a think tank that isnt cited by really anybody is an expert in the field. You want to answer that or continue making things personal for reasons that are not readily apparent to me? nableezy - 16:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Could people please desist from mechanically repeating 'battlefield mentality' on multiple pages when serious editors such as Selfstudier and Nableezy, to name two, are discussing, quite calmly and with an array of sources, some contested issue. The repetition of the claim itself is a token of a dismissive approach to fellow editors, a way of not responding to quite specific and legitimate queries. Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Its an opinion article by a non-expert in the field (expert meaning somebody with peer-reviewed works on the topic or having written books published by respected academic presses), published by an extremely partisan think tank, and as such it shouldnt be used for anything factual. nableezy - 19:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The fact that one person no matter how much of an expert uses a description is not sufficient to say it is also called that. If an expert referred to the war in Syria as a horrible situation, we wouldn't say that the war is also known as "The Horrible Situation." TFD (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Exactly right. Also the phrase "Sunni-Israeli coalition" appears only in the title of the source, which was not necessarily written by the author of the source (titles tend to be written by copy-editors of unknown expertise). So I'd say that the source does not support the phrase even if the author is an expert. Zerotalk 08:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Is NHK World-Japan reliable?

Moved from Wikipedia:Teahouse § Is this source reliable?

I found this source on the internet when I was trying to find a source on Rubetsu, Hokkaido. Is it reliable because its some news company and I'm not sure? SVcode(Talk) 15:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's NHK World-Japan, the international wing of the Japanese state broadcaster. So I would count it as reliable as other major news media, particularly for Japan. TFD (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's reliable. Spudlace (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Reliable: This site meets all the policy requirements for WP:RS as a secondary source. That doe snot mean it cannot contain many normal biases found in news reporting.

--Frobozz1 (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this source reliable and am I able to use it?

Moved from Wikipedia:Teahouse § Is this source reliable and am I able to use it?

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ834219.pdf

Is it? Romblelimer (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

It isn't in the WP:RSPS list but "this source". says it is peer-reviewed and the journal has clearly been around for some time, so it should be fine. Be prepared to discuss this on the Talk Page of the article, if anyone reverts your use of it as a reference. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Michael D. Turnbull, I have the impression that the International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 1443-1475 published by the University of Sydney is not the same journal as the one published by Shannon Research Press. Both use the same ISSN though : 1443-1475 per [8]. Not sure what's going on there. Vexations (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Our Town St James

Our Town St James appears to be one of those local publications that get delivered via bulk mail to residents in specific postal areas. One the cover it says "Keeping you up to date on SALES, HAPPENINGS & PEOPLE In Our Town - St. James". In my experience, these publications are largely just vehicles for advertising with a little bit of local content sandwiched between the ads. In the masthead, it lists an "editor" and "associate editor" but most of the pieces with bylines are written by people who also have ads in the issue. The "advertising sales manager" is the husband of the editor and also runs a real estate company. Both magazine and real estate business are run out of the same location. The circulation is about 6.5 thousand issues (i.e. the number of residents in the particular zip code). Is this considered a reliable source for BLPs? Mo Billings (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
It fits the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source in that it's a professionally written and edited publication, and additionally one that has been in publication for years.
Being a free local publication doesn't make it non-RS. The Village Voice was among many free local publications. The circulation figure is a bit of a red herring — a free local publication targeted to one town, like most alternative arts/culture weeklies, for example, would naturally have a circulation roughly equivalent to the population. I don't think we should be biased against small local publications — often, they're the best source for information about local residents. And even if one doesn't accept it as RS for, say, international news, it would certainly be RS about local goings-on and local residents.
Additional point: Ilana Glazer on her social media and magazines including Fast Company confirm she was raised in St. James. And Smithtown High School is the high school that serves St. James.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
This really really ain't the Village Voice. Mo Billings (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I worked at a large county newspaper and there were three sets of married people working there and all had different functions. I think just because married people work there shouldn't mean it's non-RS.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I wasn't making a generalisation, just a statement of fact about this specific publication. Did you look at the sample issue linked above? Mo Billings (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I did look at it. It's a community paper with real estate ads, obits, upcoming events, upcoming celebration announcements are free per their page 80, they have lots of ads, and one "useful" story (I could find) on page 30 - with the history of "Smithtown Hunts" by a local historian. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
In cases where subjects have essentially written an article about themselves (or paid to receive coverage), the story couldn't be used to establish notability and would have to follow the rules about self-published sources. It's hard to tell what is an advertorial in the publication, because many of their stories do not have bylines or special marking to indicate that (which is a normal editorial practice). On the other hand, the article on pp. 30–34 is likely to be OK, as its feature article written by a local historian. I do think that the editor being married to the magazine's ad/sales person makes editorial independence, one of the main criteria for a RS, seem unlikely—I wouldn't consider most anything about real estate in the publication to be reliable. Also this statement on the masthead is worrying to me: "We reserve the right at our sole discretion to edit or refuse to print editorial or advertising material deemed detrimental to Our Town’s public image or unsuitable for its readers." —Wingedserif (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
That statement indicates to me that it is biased rather than unreliable (although there other issues that may make it unreliable). Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Input requested on pubpeer.com

I removed some content from a BLP that alleged irregularities (image manipulation) in papers published by the BLP, sourced to comments made on pubpeer.com. At least some of the comments were made by Elisabeth Bik, a respected scientist. I've been told that pubpeer.com is quite strict about comments, and was pointed to their FAQ. Question: should comments on pubpeer.com be considered reliable? If the comments are by a known, verifiable expert, should they be considered reliable? (I'm not considering WP:DUE yet, as it's moot if the source isn't acceptable.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The situation is as follows. Whatever the overall reliability of the scientific literature, there are certainly erroneous and fraudulent papers published. Many journals do not have robust procedures for correcting such errors, especially "predatory" journals. When problems are detected, the information is often posted to PubPeer. PubPeer posts must be supported and verifiable/falsifiable, and those that are "obviously erroneous" or "unclear" are removed, because of site policy and legal strategy. Although accuracy is not guaranteed by site operation, in practice comments suggesting issues are on average highly accurate. Thus, a paper with negative comments on PubPeer is far more likely to be erroneous than not. What probability of correctness does Wikipedia require to qualify for a controversy? Some PubPeer users have established themselves as world experts in the detection and analysis of manipulations of scientific images (in particular Elisabeth Bik), and PubPeer comments posted from her verified account carry particular weight; certain pseudonymous accounts have also accumulated acknowledged expertise. (I am connected with PubPeer, but haven't created a Wikipedia account.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.173.191.76 (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
PubPeer is a interesting resource, but from what I have seen in practice a crazy mix of legitimate questions (as, yes, raised for example by Elisabeth Bik[9]), and howling woo by quacks and charlatans upset at a scientific paper questioning their beliefs. It is never reliable for any content in Wikipedia articles (unless covered by high-quality secondary sources), but it may - with extreme care - sometimes be useful in evaluating source quality. Alexbrn (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
These are message board comments. While the site may have some standards for rejecting some, they are not the standards of full editorship. A user's comments, even an expert one, are still effectively a self-published source, and the article they are being used on is a WP:BLP. So no, not sufficient in this case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to explain that statement a bit for the PubPeer contributor to this discussion, who may be new to Wikipedia editing and these concerns: we have varying standards for reliable sources depending on the topic. For example, if I write a blog post that says that in cooking brownies, you can include walnuts, peanuts, or hex nuts, that shouldn't be included in the article on brownies, because a blog is a self-published source and I am not an expert in brownie baking. If Time magazine publishes an article I've written making that statement, then it can be used as a source, because Time is a reliable outlet with solid editorial standards, so their approval of my article marks its reliability. If renowned brownie expert Elizabeth Crocker publishes on her blog that one should never include hex nuts in brownies, that too is a reliable source for the brownie article, because Crocker is an established expert. But, if Crocker blogs that "Nat Gertler is wrong when he says that hex nuts can be used in brownies", that cannot be used as a source for the Wikipedia article about Nat Gertler, because that article is about a living person, and we do not allow self-published sources for articles or statements about living people. We set higher standards for those, because of the damage that erroneous information can cause. Similarly, we set higher standards for medical statements, because it's the sort of thing that the popular press can be sloppy on, and bad information can cause harm. By these sources being used in an article about a living person, at least those higher standards are required, and given the specific topic, the medical higher standards may be as well. PubPeer appears to provide a valuable service, but in this case we need editorial standards higher than "not obviously erroneous". --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
An just an addendum: PubPeer is nearly always concerned with primary SCI/MED sources, so its applicability to Wikipedia sourcing is moot (since those sources are not generally reliable anyway). In general, while post-publication peer-review can be a great thing, it is also a vector for the disgruntled tactics of some with ulterior motives. In sum: not ever usable as a source on Wikipedia, but maybe interesting otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(PubPeer person) Thanks for all your comments and explanations. We aren't going to push for PubPeer inclusion at this stage, it just came up in a discussion. I'll reply to a few of the comments and we'll leave it at that for now:

- "... crazy mix... howling woo by quacks and charlatans" Untrue and unjustified. Examples on the site?

- @Nat the standards are higher than "not obviously erroneous" for anything misconduct related (in fact, it needs to be convincing enough for the site to be prepared to defend a defamation suit on a truth defence), but I understand accuracy has not been well documented

- on average, comments are much more reliable than the papers commented; that's the practical result, whatever your prejudices about site operation

Finally, it seems you do accept expert opinion. You should consider Elisabeth Bik to be an expert on the integrity of scientific images. When she affirms there is a problem, whether on PubPeer or elsewhere, her opinion carries real weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.182.89.196 (talk • contribs)

I certainly accept that Bik is to be respected in this case, and it is not a reflection on her expertise. There are very clear guidelines when it comes to sources that we can use for biographical articles on living people, and they reflect more how the item was published rather than who wrote the material. But thank you for explaining PubPeer from the inside! --Nat Gertler (talk)
Primary source, primary sources even by subject matter experts should never be used for claims about living persons. Clear exclude unless this gets picked up by other sources like Retraction Watch or something like an expression of concern is published. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Heinz Duthel

Heinz Duthel is a bad-faith actor known to plagiarise Wikipedia for self promotion and enrichment, in violation of our licensing policy, and reproducing content as self-published "books" which find their way to Google Books and other repositories. Unknowing good-faith editors encountering these fake works while looking for book sources have mistakenly made bad citations of them, resulting in cases of WP:citogenesis. See for example Special:Diff/874529558, where, though no preview of the supposed 2015 publication is currently available for me, the Google Books description is lifted straight from the Tourism in Thailand article (where the text was added in 2010). This was also recently raised at Talk:Grand Palace#Copyright violation. Some of this bad actor's claimed works might not be plagiarism of Wikipedia, but all of it can be presumed to be in no way reliable. I have recently removed these bad citations from articles.

I would like to suggest implementing an edit filter to either (a) give a warning, or (b) block the edit, when citations to works ostensibly by "Heinz Duthel" are added. I've raised this at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_17#"Books" by Heinz Duthel, where it was suggested that consensus be gathered here before implementation. I've also suggested adding the publisher "Books on Demand", a vanity press, to the edit filter that tags additions of citations to self-published sources. Not all of Duthel's supposed works are through this publisher, though, so I would like to see if there's support for option (a) or (b) to be applied explicitly for this person. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Mashable

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joel S. Levine/archive1, there's a small discussion as part of my source review about if Mashable is considered RS. Last in-depth discussion about this source is from way back in 2008. It deemed it unreliable, but things could well have changed at Mashable in the last 13 years. I'm personally unfamiliar with the source, but my impression is that it has a tendency to look bloggish at times. Hog Farm Talk 01:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It is now owned by Ziff Davis for what that is worth. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should Mashable be deprecated?

OPTION 2 FOR NON-SPONSORED CONTENT, OPTION 3 FOR SPONSORED CONTENT
The overall consensus was that while non-sponsored content is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus. Extra attention needs to be paid when it comes to sponsored content, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 06:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My request for comment is as follows: which of the following best describes the general reliability of Mashable?

Survey (Mashable)

  • Option 4I have strong concerns about content produced by companies that are owned by Ziff Media due to its self-described advertising practices, with a particular concern about Mashable. Some of the "advertising solutions" available on the Ziff Davis Website include the solution of "[e]ditorial content alignment." Ziff media explicitly states that Mashable articles can be "custom created for your brand, serving everything from upper funnel awareness tactics to lower funnel purchase intent." Mashable does not appear to make it clear whatsoever when an article is paid for by a company versus when an article is written by its staff independently from financial influence. This article is clearly an advertisement, but there is no explicit label that the article is a paid advertisement the article's page; the only way to tell is from looking at context clues. I imagine that not all content that is produced as a result of payments to Mashable's owner are as obviously ads as this one, such as this piece, and I am concerned about the use of any source that produces content that it produces in a news-like style without revealing if an article is a paid advertisement or not. This clearly fails to meet the basic standards that WP:V and WP:RS lay out for Mashable to be considered a reliable source.
Mashable brands itself as "the go-to source for tech, digital culture and entertainment content for its dedicated and influential audience around the globe." But, as far as I can tell, Mashable should never be used except for non-controversial self-descriptions, because it utterly fails to distinguish any real journalism it may perform from custom content hosted on the same website that has been produced as a result of payments by brands as a part of Mashable's money-making practice of "editorial content alignment". — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Option 2 for non-sponsored content, per below, and Option 3 for sponsored content, like The Points Guy. I realize now that my browser privacy settings prevented me from seeing the declaration of a financial COI on the native advertising pages that Feminist and Newslinger have pointed out. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1-2 for non-sponsored content, Option 3 for sponsored content; like The Points Guy (RSP entry). Chompy Ace 00:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - Its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis if an editor is disputing specific content primarily sourced to Mashable. It appears that Ziff Media acquired Mashable in 2017, so would articles published between 2005-2017 be considered false or fabricated information? A search on Google Scholar shows 18,000+ hits for older Mashable articles being used as references for scholarly literature. Two of the articles linked above are clearly marked as being from their "shopping" section, and don't appear to be deceptive to me, as in masquerading as serious news articles. The Washington Post and The New York Times (and many other reliable sources} have shopping sections as well, earning revenue for them. In my opinion, if the content to be included is that significant or notable, then there are probably other sources available, if you don't want to use Mashable. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2, per the discussion below. It's a youth-oriented website written in an informal style. Sponsored content should be avoided at all costs, and advert-like content is likely inadvisable when there is a better source available, or when looking for high-quality sources (such as in the FAC that motivates this discussion). Likely good for internet culture, entertainment reviews and some simple uncontroversial facts, but care should be taken on a case-by-case basis. — Bilorv (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I don't think editors will consider it reliable for the Syrian Civil Conflict or the most controversial articles but they might accept it for entertainment and pop culture articles. Spudlace (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Per my comments below, it is a low-quality source for science and technology and better sources will almost certainly exist. It is higher quality and mostly reliable for contemporary pop culture, but care should be taken to avoid sponsored and advert-like content which can be inconspicuously marked. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per the discussion above.Sea Ane (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for non-sponsored content, Option 3 (can be 2 depending on the level of analysis within the article; use editorial judgment) for sponsored content. Both of the examples the discussion starter pointed to are "Mashable Deals" articles under mashable.com/shopping/ URLs, and both are labeled "Shopping" at the top left corner. I find it puzzling that the OP suggests "no explicit label" for paid content: both examples include the text If you buy something through links on our site, Mashable may earn an affiliate commission. This appears to me to be a clear declaration that Mashable may be paid for purchases made via their Shopping section. And if the concern is with Ziff Davis in general, why single out Mashable among their sites? feminist (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for subjects like pop culture, media, internet culture, etc. Option 3 for sponsored content. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2 for non-sponsored content, which is generally fine, but not necessarily the best. Option 3 for sponsored content. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2, it is not the best source but it is better than nothing.--Droid I am (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - it depends on context, as always... what is the kind of article and line language of how it is being used for. And since this is a widespread media company, what part of Mashable is that from? (It should be obvious that the website blog section is a blog, at least.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • 2 Per above discusion. NightWolf1223 17:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Mashable)

Pinging Hog Farm, Emir of Wikipedia, and Yitzilitt. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Mashable details their sponsored content on the "Branded Content Sponsorship" page. Looking at the examples (e.g. "Click Here for the Origin of the Buzzword 'Clickability'"), the sponsored content appears to be labeled with the word "Advertisement" in gray at the top-left of the screen on a desktop web browser – which is not the most robust disclosure, and is similar to how Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry) are not clearly portrayed as non-staff authors. However, is there any evidence against the reliability of Mashable's non-sponsored content? — Newslinger talk 23:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I believe Mashable was acquired by Ziff Davis in 2017, so I imagine that the practice that I've detailed only applies to articles after that point. There isn't any sort of labeling in the article I linked in the survey section as far as I can tell from my browser. They've had some content issues before, including republishing content from a parody content from an obscure site as real, though they eventually issued a correction. The NY Times has given coverage to the sort of stuff that you found, which is paid articles labeled as such. Earlier articles (pre-2011 at least) seem to be bloggish and don't appear to have been made under no significant editorial oversight. Some of their earlier reporting is contradicted by reliable sources claims that "300" individuals threatened suicide at a factory, for example, while The Telegraph reports that the number was half that. So They attempted to build up some editorial oversight, but they largely gutted it in 2016. Their attempt to form a newsroom got further gutted at the time of their acquisition. Some of their early Covid coverage seems a bit off, such as reporting that "social distancing" is a three-foot separation, rather than what most media reports as six feet. But honestly the site focuses on "viral" content and has a clickbait feel to it. There are some issues with accuracy on specific numbers in its ordinary reporting, but my main issue is not that they have both some reporting and paid content.

      The main issue for me is that it has (at least after 2017) become nearly impossible to determine what is paid content and what is content that they have generated themselves. In this case, the source becomes unreliable and unusable by Wikipedia's WP:V standards.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

      • Thanks for the detailed response. The linked article from your original comment is labeled with the "Mashable Deals" tag, with the comment "All products featured here are independently selected by our editors and writers. If you buy something through links on our site, Mashable may earn an affiliate commission." This looks similar to all of the "Dealmaster" posts on Ars Technica (RSP entry), the "Engadget Deals" posts on Engadget (RSP entry), the "Verge Deals" posts on The Verge (RSP entry), and the posts tagged as "deals" on Wired (RSP entry). These types of posts are native advertisements and are considered unreliable under WP:SPONSORED, but they are generally not considered to affect the reliability of the publication's non-sponsored content. As ad blocking becomes more popular, native advertising will become more commonplace, and tech publications (whose technically inclined readers are more likely to block banner ads) are understandably already trying to obtain alternative revenue sources.

        I agree that some of the other issues you have pointed out indicate that Mashable should probably not be considered generally reliable. I am also not impressed with the non-obvious "Advertisement" disclosure that can easily be confused as a heading indicating a topic area (advertising). On the other hand, I don't see any issues with Ziff Davis as an entity, since it also publishes the generally reliable IGN (RSP entry) and PCMag. — Newslinger talk 07:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

    • No, Mashable's non-sponsored content is (generally) reliable, like Forbes staff (RSP entry) and HuffPost (excluding politics and contributors) (RSP entry) does. Chompy Ace 00:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • this article, which is not marked as an advert in any way that I can easily see, reads in a large part like an advert for Signal although the reasoning does match my understanding of the situation from other sources. A random scanning of other articles in the science and tech categories hasn't produced any red flags, but it also didn't show up anything that wouldn't be available in other, potentially better, sources. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    I think the article's claim that "Telegram, unlike Signal, doesn't have end-to-end encryption by default" is accurate and consistent with other reliable sources:
    • Tom's Guide: "Signal's individual messages are encrypted end-to-end by default, while Telegram's basic one-on-one chats are not. If you want to protect your communications in Telegram from Telegram itself, you'll have to start a Secret Chat." and "Both platforms offer a group messaging option. Again, Signal's is encrypted end-to-end, while Telegram's is not. (There's no Secret Chat equivalent for groups.)"
    • Wired (RSP entry): "Mimoun explained that yes, Telegram encrypts messages. But by default it encrypts data only between your device and Telegram's server; you have to turn on end-to-end encryption to prevent the server itself from seeing the messages. In fact, the group messaging feature that the Southeast Asian activists used most often offers no end-to-end encryption at all."
    • The Verge (RSP entry): "That said, Telegram has also faced its share of criticism from the security community in part because its end-to-end encryption is not enabled by default."
    — Newslinger talk 01:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    Is it just speculation that this could be an advert? I think such youth-targeted websites often use this conversational, jokey style like Go forth, and choose your messaging service wisely. (Hint: Make it Signal.) so it's difficult to distinguish between a journalist who reasonably concludes they want to write a pro-Signal anti-Telegram piece, and one paid to do so. As for other uses where it's not superseded by better-quality sources, see my comment below (television/film reviews are generally "the more, the merrier"). — Bilorv (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, it's speculation. It doesn't say it's an advert but the tone is consistent with what I'd expect from an advertorial. As I said I only looked at the science and tech sections, where I didn't see any errors but didn't see anything that I've not seen better elsewhere (especially in terms of depth). In other words acceptable but low quality. In contrast the articles I sampled in the "Culture" and "Social good" sections are much more in-depth and seem to be well researched and soberly written (e.g. [10]), and while I have not actively searched out equivalent articles from other sources I saw nothing that jarred with my prior understanding. I don't consume anywhere near enough entertainment news or media reviews to have a reliable opinion about how its coverage compares. Thryduulf (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    Alright, thanks for the reply. Gives me enough information for the !vote I've made above. — Bilorv (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I've found Mashable useful when working in television and film-related topics, such as Every 'Black Mirror' episode ever, ranked by overall dread on pages such as "San Junipero", and David Attenborough's new book and Netflix film tackles climate crisis with a 'vision for the future' on David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet. I'm sure I could find some much better examples if I knew how to search for edits I've made that introduce mashable.com links. I guess what I need to know to continue doing this is that Mashable reviews cannot be purchased and that there's a broadly sufficient fact-checking process for simple uncontroversial facts. (It seems clear that the writers are professionals and that their critical opinion is reasonably noteworthy.) I do consider it on the low-quality end of sources I use, but it is sometimes the best source for something or a necessary source to flesh out a "Reception" section. — Bilorv (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Just letting you that for whatever reason I did not get that ping, but I look at this page fairly regularly so I have not missed anything. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sullivan, Randall (2004). The Miracle Detective. New York: Grove Press

How reliable this author is on the subject of the Marian apparitions in Medjugorje. I understand that the publisher has a good reputation, however, the author's neutrality for me is disputed, as he is one-sided and believes in the apparitions, and is a supporter of the phenomenon [11]. In one of Oprah's show episodes, he claims to have been converted in Medjugorje.

--Governor Sheng (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Nintendo Everything development interviews

I've asked this question at WT:VG but wasn't really satisfied with the answer.

Nintendo Everything is considered an unreliable source per WP:VG/RS, namely because it's a fan blog site in broad terms. However, they often interview video game developers, and more often than not I see these interviews trying to rewrite an article (this time around Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam). So, would these interviews be considered WP:PRIMARY and allowed, or would they still be unusable? And follow-up question, would it meet WP:GA standards?

Examples:

[12] (Turned down for a kinda unspecified reason at GA nomination by User:Sergecross73, and was a translation of an interview at Famitsu)

[13] (Original site is no longer available)

Panini🥪 17:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

For the first link it could potentially violate WP:COPYLINK to use nintendo everything's translation of the Famitsu interview, given that it is unlikely to be authorised. I don't see any issue with directly citing the Japanese language Famitsu interview (there's nothing against citing non-english language sources), as for the second, it's probably OK under aboutself, as long as other sources corroborate that the Miiverse Miiting happened. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia, Yes, there's A Nintendo Life source that covers it. So I could use it? Panini🥪 17:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Interviews at unreliable sources combine all of the limitations of WP:ABOUTSELF with any source-specific issues. That could be a general lack of fact-checking all the way up to fabricating interviews. Nintendo Everything is your average unreliable VG fansite: anonymous/amateur writers and editor(s), unclear editorial policies, repeating rumors, not issuing retractions (that I could find), and so on. Thankfully, I'm not aware of them fabricating stories or interviews, but then we're still back at ABOUTSELF. WP:UNDUE also becomes a factor. So maybe we can fill in some basic details, but we certainly shouldn't write the article around an interview. And if that interview is the only source to mention some fact, we really need to ask if it's important enough to repeat on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment In addition to Hemiauchenia's point about non-English sources above, I should point out that a lot of English-language video games journalism is reliant on questionable machine-translations of Japanese primary sources like Famitsu interviews -- we normally consider ScreenRant to be a reliable source for popular media, but in this case virtually everything they said was wrong because they had misinterpreted a Japanese-language source. I am not sure how prevalent this is, but I have a Google News alert set for Final Fantasy VII Remake, and it seems like at least half of the "news" that I get is of this kind; in such situations, we treat the foreign sources as more reliable than the English ones. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Ramapough Mountain Indians and a report on an oral court argument

Scrolling down to Ramapough Mountain Indians#Petition for recognition, the last paragraph documents a petition, later denied, for federal recognition. I've been shown a copy of a newspaper article that states that "During ora! argument, BIA conceded that the RMI are Indians — “The Court: So the question of whether they’re Indians at all is not on the table . . . They won that. . . Is that right? — Mr. Bryson: That’s right.”[14]. Can that be used? Doug Weller talk 13:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I've got a book on my shelf with a chapter about the Ramapough Mountain People/Indians, will check if I can get you a better source. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, my source is no good for any of the stuff mentioned, it states they have some Native American ancestry but their ultimate origin is as a biracial white/black group. It records that the BIA decided in 1993 they did not have continuous existence as a cultural group, which meant they were ineligible for recognition as a Native American tribe. This seems to have been considered a victory for one Donald Trump, a well-known Atlantic City businessman who didn't want competition for his casinos. Sorry I couldn't help more. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: If you would like to have the court's ruling, wikimail me and I'll reply with a PDF. John M Baker (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I have no opinion about this question, but did notice the following tangentially related in WP:BLPPRIMARY: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. I'd be interested in the answer to this however it turns out. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Adoring nanny, that is not an issue of reliability but of the privacy of living persons. For other articles, the guidance is in WP:PRIMARY, which states that a primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Primary sources also need to be reputably published, which is not an issue for a court ruling available on Westlaw. John M Baker (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Greenpeace

Is Greenpeace a RS for statements of fact? Context: I'd like to use this as a source at 2021 North China sandstorm. In particular, see the "What caused the sandstorm?" section on the article. It details events that the article should include, but typical RS (journalists) aren't covering (instead, they focus mostly on the colour of the sky etc). Skimming, I can't find this information on news sources. I don't really have a reason to question its reliability, but Greenpeace is an NGO so I'm not sure if it's considered a reliable secondary source without attribution? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Having read it, my instinct is yes. Greenpeace has a good reputation for factual accuracy, and this article is very measured in its tone. It would depend on the exact wording you wanted, but I think the section "What caused the sandstorm?" is probably ok to use without attribution, using the following sections would need attribution imo. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
They have anti-science stance on GMO so I am not sure how accurate they on other stuff --Shrike (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
They are opinionated, but I don't think they actively spread false information. Certainly there is nothing concerning in the article linked, it may be that their comments on GMO might be considered less reliable, but reliability does not need to be shown for every subject. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
If we take a Greenpeace article on GMO like this one, they are not spreading disinformation. They correctly say that genetically modifying plants to be resistant to herbicides encourages their use. There should definitely be attribution here, but I don't see any "anti-science" perspective.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
It's an opinion piece, full of obviously false claims like "[Industrial agriculture is] only a few decades old" , or assertions of political positions like "It’s quite simply unsustainable." It is about the farthest from a reliable source for facts as one can think of. It is only good for presenting Greenpeace opinions on the topic. Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I would argue that the accuracy of the statement depends on our definition of "few" and "industrial agriculture", neither of which is straightforward. There are no obvious falsehoods in the opinion piece, and it is fine use with attribution. The article we are actually discussing at the moment is much less opinionated, especially the section the OP asked about. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Not unless you want to stretch the meaning of those two words beyond any reasonable common usage. Machines have been used in agriculture, for industrial production, since at least the early part of the 19th century. That is an obvious falsehood, and the rest is opinion. The only thing this piece can be used for is for Greenpeace's opinion that GMO-based agriculture is bad. Kenosha Forever (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The section we are being asked to analyse, "What caused the sandstorm?", consists of only two paragraphs. All but the final sentence of the second paragraph are factual and not an matter of opinion, whether that is about industrial agriculture or anything else. That final sentence, "Moreover, long-term deforestation and soil erosion in southern Mongolia have led to more severe air pollution." is also purely factual but I'm not immediately certain how relevant it is (this is a genuine unknown not me stating an opinion it isn't relevant). Indeed, I can't find any mention of "industrial agriculture" in the entire article ("overgrazing" is the closest it comes, but industrial agriculture is only one of at least several possible causes of that) so that appears to be a complete red herring. Thryduulf (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
My comment above is related to the GMO article. That article is full of obvious falsehoods, and unsupported assertions of a political nature. That is a good illustration of why, generally speaking, we should not use an advocacy source like Greenpeace for factual claims. Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
And yet you have yet to identify a single falsehood in the article concerned. There is opinion, which must be attributed, but we would expect to find that anywhere.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
It is objectively false that industrial agriculture is only a few decades old. Opinions are not facts. If you want to say Greenpeace are reliable for their opinions, I agree. But nothing more than that. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Opinions are not facts. And yet you present your own opinions as though they were facts. This is unfortunate. Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Where? Kenosha Forever (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It is objectively false that industrial agriculture is only a few decades old. That is an opinion, and one that relies on a rather particular definition of "industrial agriculture" for its claim of facticity to be at all plausible. So, yeah: an opinion presented as fact. Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It is fact based on the common meaning of "industrial agriculture" - "Industrial agriculture is the large-scale, intensive production of crops and animals" 101#:~:text=Industrial%20agriculture%20is%20the%20large,the%20animals%20are%20not%20sick). That has been in existence since the early 19c, at the latest - Intensive_farming#History. Kenosha Forever (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Greenpeace’s article or report length content is a RS for statements of fact with attribution. I would avoid using them for an extraordinary claim (like the definitive cause of a sandstorm) in wikivoice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe that ALL advocacy orgs should be used with attribution. Whether to mention what they say (or not) should be a function of DUE WEIGHT, and not a reliability issue. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Depends on the usage, I feel. Basic statements of facts on events? I guess so, though I feel you should be able to easily find better sources in that case. On subjects of science? I'd go with rather unreliable, since Greenpeace has repeatedly pushed pseudoscientific stances on topics (such as biotechnology) and promoted various conspiracy health claims that were not science-based. SilverserenC 20:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • For anything but the most basic facts, it would be unreliable. And for the undisputed facts, there will be better sources. Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Better sources are available. In particular, the New York Times quotes Greenpeace; it would be much better to use Greenpeace via a high-quality secondary source like that. Also, from Reuters: Beijing faces regular sandstorms in March and April due to its proximity to the massive Gobi desert as well as deforestation and soil erosion throughout northern China. And Live Science: During the 1950s, deforestation and soil erosion, especially in the north, fueled more frequent and more intense sandstorms. People cut down the forests that once stood on the border with Mongolia and provided a natural buffer against sand. However, a mass tree-planting project initiated in the 1970s has helped counteract that damage. ... ...making sandstorms like this one an outlier. However, climate change has made winds stronger, which could worsen sandstorms in the future. See also [15][16][17]. I would use these sources to state the impact of climate change in the article voice as fact (they're more than sufficient), and possibly include the quote from Greenpeace China's director from the NYT article, which would of course be attributed to him. Or is there some information that isn't in those sources, but is in the Greenpeace source, that you wanted to include? --Aquillion (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • For this particular situation (and similar situations where high-quality sources cite Greenpeace for something), use non-advocacy sources, basically per Aquillion. If Greenpeace is the only organization which reports on something or makes a certain claim, avoid them. Greenpeace's agenda goes way beyond environmental protection; they regularly engage in sensationalism and advocacy to promote solutions that are not evidence-based. feminist (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

CNN

Consensus to retain status quo (generally reliable). starship.paint (exalt) 09:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What do you think about the reliability of CNN?

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#RfC: CNN

Firestar464 (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any particular reason to doubt the results of the previous discussions? Just asking without any other details is unlikely to produce a different result: It's a top-quality source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that roughly represents the mainstream of cable news, and is the gold standard of cable news to the extent that such a thing exists. It's also the most nonpartisan and unbiased of the major cable news networks in the US, to the extent that that is a thing. Obviously some would argue that that is itself a form of bias, but it's roughly as unbiased as any major news source can reasonably expect to be. --Aquillion (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I think CNN is reliable. I think Project Veritas is not. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
This shit again? This isn't a properly formatted RfC anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I've removed "RfC" from the section heading, since this discussion is not formatted as a formal request for comment. Please see also "RFC on CNN" (August 2020). — Newslinger talk 06:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, NL. Was going to do it after being slapped by Hemi. Firestar464 (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I've updated the entry in the perennial sources list. There's a backlog of discussions to be listed and I'm working on it. If you would like to help, feel free to add any discussions that are missing per the instructions at WP:RSPI. — Newslinger talk 06:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Newslinger is this backlog listed somewhere? Elli (talk | contribs) 06:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Elli, if you see any discussion on this noticeboard (or any of the archives) that meets WP:RSPCRITERIA, please feel free to add it into the perennial sources list. The instructions are at WP:RSPI and I am happy to assist if you have any questions.

I used to patrol the archives around the same time every day (approximately 4:00 UTC) when the archive bot processes the page, review every single archived discussion, and then add the qualifying ones to the perennial sources list. However, my prompt indexing may have discouraged other editors from helping build the list, and I paused this practice (starting at archive 303) to encourage participation from others. Unfortunately, this leaves the list with some gaps, and I'm going to resume from where I left off to ensure that no discussions are missing from the list. My new plan is to wait a week (or some other time frame) after a discussion is archived before indexing it, so that there is enough time for others to jump in ahead of me if they want to do so. — Newslinger talk 06:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

CNN is generally reliable. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I generally favor status quo regarding CNN as a RS. One thing I can think to mention is that Glenn Greenwald (who lives in Brazil) has compared the localized brand of CNN in Brazil (CNN Brazil) to Fox News. So too has The Intercept (Greenwald used to worked there). Here is a clip which Greenwald shows and he says is a featured commentator on CNN Brazil minimizing the COVID-19 pandemic. Here is a clip he shows of apparently a CNN Brazil employee saying hydroxychloroquine is a proven cure for COVID-19. He last year claimed this is regular on the network. Also, he says that a similar thing happened with CNN Turkey. Now, I don't speak Portuguese or Turkish. So I don't know exactly what is going on over there, but this seems relevant to bring to attention here. There could be problems with at least some of CNN's localized versions. At the very least, CNN Brazil appears questionable, unless something changed since last year. This probably isn't unique to CNN, either. I'm sure more than just CNN have separate branches in separate countries that are run in a different way. --Chillabit (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think Greenwald's personal opinion carries much weight in WP:RSN discussions, given his strong opinions on both the media and politics. He's spoken highly of RT, for instance, which is certainly not a reliable source, and has criticized numerous sources that we consider reliable in similar terms. (It's also slightly misleading to say that he merely "worked" at the Intercept; he's one of its founders.) You can look over the archives for similar discussions in the past. --Aquillion (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • (Actually ran into an edit conflict trying to post this) I'm going to quickly backtrack here. After digging around in their site's COVID-19 section for a bit with a translator, I detect none of this craziness. Their written reporting as far back as May regarding hydroxychloroquine appears to be sound. Maybe this is just a problem with their talk shows or something, which I doubt we would be citing anyway. --Chillabit (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • He's spoken highly of RT, for instance, which is certainly not a reliable source. Speak for yourself. Maybe if people like Greenwald can admit it is then perhaps Wikipedia should grow up and admit it is too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The article by Greenwald that you linked makes some very reasonable points. It's specifically about Assange's show that aired on RT, and Greenwald correctly points out that Assange booked a high-impact guest (the leader of Hesbollah) and asked tough questions (that go against the Russian government's position). I see no reason to discount Greenwald's opinions, based on that article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think CNN Brazil is a CNN branch or part of CNN. I think its an independent media outlet which licenses the name in their local market. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Even if Assange had been granted more of a wide berth in that role, such an exception doesn't necessarily "prove/trump the rule", as they say. The proverbial "rule" being the general consensus that Russian government has quite a bit of editorial control over RT, both direct and indirect (though admittedly more of the latter). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Subject to the same restrictions about not confusing editorial or commentary as the same as journalism; CNN's news reporting is as reliable as it can get. I see no reason to doubt the veracity of what its news operation reports. --Jayron32 14:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • CNN isn't that great a source but they are good enough to qualify as RS and they are a major news site so in general their articles will have weight. The network, rightly, has some black eyes and I don't think anyone would dispute they have a bias that impacts their work but that isn't sufficient to call them unreliable. I see no reason to change the RSP entry. Springee (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Only thing I've noticed of late with CNN is more clickbaity headlines (usually a highly opinionated statement atop a non op-ed piece), but as headlines are explicitly excluded from being an RS and we review the body for any issues, this is not a problem, and CNN remains a second-tier (just under BBC/NYTimes/WaPost) RS to me. --Masem (t) 16:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

CNN is a reliable news source but it may not be reliable in other types of articles like science or history. Spudlace (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Honestly, what television channel could be considered a reliable source on history? They are typically less detailed than the average periodical in their coverage. Dimadick (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Definitely not top tier, but it's generally reliable. Levivich harass/hound 03:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • As with any source, filter out any opinions and political views, and get the pure facts out of what's being said; that's what Wikipedia is all about, and I don't think CNN has a problem in terms of not being factual. For political articles, they often show bias by omission (most of their competitors do the same), but just combine that with the facts presented by other sources to get the full picture and it'll be fine. Uses x (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Encyclopedia Britannica website

I made a citation of Britannica.com on Louis III of France. Is it a reliable enough source to utilize?

xdude (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xdude gamer: Is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louis_III_of_France&diff=1013775046&oldid=1013718087 this] the case you are concerned about? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. That was the citation. xdude (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Xdude gamer For something like that, I think it's ok, assuming EB actually says that. A historybook would be even better, see WP:BRITANNICA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok! Thanks, it helps out the project a lot!
(I've been trying to reshape the article) xdude (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable Britannica has a high level of accuracy. We don't require exhaustive citation in the form of (as cited by) followed to the primary. Most of the so-called "secondary sources" use a mix of secondary and primary sources, much of it teritary. Modern (mostly post-critical) scholarship is strongly preferred and builds mostly on the established secondary scholarship. Britannica is fine as long as editors are careful about the weight issues. It's understood that articles are always improving and reliable enough, to answer OP's inquiry. Spudlace (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Doesn't verify the relevant information Reliability is not the issue. The referenced article doesn't seem to mention Ferrières Abbey or support the specific claims that Louis's reign was especially short and is best remembered for his military victories (although the former might be WP:BLUE and the latter is indirectly supported by the fact that his military victory over the Norsemen is mentioned in the opening sentence). The citations should be removed in the short term and ultimately replaced with a more detailed source that supports the content (unless the content is wrong, in which case it should be changed). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    The Britannica article starts with "[king....] from 879 to 882, whose decisive victory over the Northmen in August 881, at Saucourt, Ponthieu, briefly stemmed the incursions of the Scandinavian invaders into northern France." and ends with: "Louis’s victory at Saucourt (the memory of which was preserved in the chanson de geste called Gormont et Isembart) inflicted heavy losses on the Vikings, but the able and energetic king, not yet 20, died in the following year." So there is some support there.Nyx86 (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I know (that was the gist of the above parenthetical statement); I'm just not sure that a short Britannica article that merely states that he lived/reigned for X number of years is enough by itself to support the specific content in the article: maybe his reign was not especially short for his time and place, and as for his coronation the date is something that could be verified by any list of kings of France in a reliable source, while the location isn't verified by the Britannica article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Lesbian and Gay News

Is Lesbian and Gay News a generally reliable source?

This is a new publication that seems (almost entirely but not quite) devoted to trans issues. It is affiliated with the LGB Alliance, a trans-exclusionary activist organization. On every page, it has a banner saying, "Reject the gender alphabet. It's as easy as LGB. LGB Alliance", and LGB Alliance has this tweet. Its reports have several issues. They report as fact, for instance, the notion that "Transgenderism, transing LGB youth, is just the latest form of homophobia" and that "Mainstream LGBT advocacy groups have adopted the authoritarian stance of the left" and "in 2021 homophobic ‘microagressions’ are regarded as on a par with the gay-bashing of decades past". These are not filed under 'Opinion', which the publication also has a section for, so this raises questions about what it reports as factual.

This question is prompted by it being mentioned as "far more reliable" than Pink News at Talk:Equality Act (United States)#Undue weight. I am unfamiliar with RfCs but if someone wishes to have one, that is fine. Urve (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

We evaluate so many sources that we usually don't create RfCs except when there is a lot of disagreement. For most sources, a discussion like this is fine, and gets referenced in the archives when the next person asks about the source. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate you letting me know the procedures—all foreign to me. Urve (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not Reliable. This is an anti-transgender hate site. See [18] and [19]. And they appear to be letting that agenda spill over into factual claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable they appear to be unable (or possibly unwilling) to distinguish opinion from fact. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm neutral regarding deprecating as suggested below. I have no arguments against it but I'm not familiar enough with deprecation of sources to know whether it is the sort of thing we do for sources that are not widely used (and I sincerely hope this never becomes widely used). Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable for citing attributed opinions, but not for unattributed statements of fact - whether the opinions are WP:DUE or not is a separate issue. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It's brand new and clearly agenda driven, apparently being closely tied to the LGB Alliance. The stories labelled as "reports" contain just as much opinion as the opinion pieces. Not a reliable source. Fences&Windows 13:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • More reliable than PinkNews is not a high bar. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • From WP:RSP: "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject." Fences&Windows 14:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I have found PinkNews to be generally reliable on purely factual claims, biased in opinions (as one would expect) and completely and utterly unreliable on the subject of whether a particular person is LGBTQ+ or whether a particular person is homophobic -- especially historic figures. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Possibly too early to tell? They clearly have an agenda, but there are many RS that do. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Not reliable per Guy and Thryduulf. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Not reliable per Guy and Thryduulf. Mouth piece of the LGB Alliance, a trans-exclusionary activist organization. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Plus it has zero reputation for journalism and fact-checking. And to second User_talk:Black Kite we would never accept a openly bigoted racist site as a reliable news source, so I too personally believe we ought not use a transphobic one. ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable This appears to be a publication purposefully made for biased statements and not actual news reporting of any form. So even worse than sources like Breitbart or the Daily Mail and we already limit those as it is. Honestly, even if it's new, I feel like immediately deprecating this source would save further discussion time in the future. SilverserenC 19:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Completely unreliable and should be deprecated. We wouldn't use a racist site, I see no reason why we'd use a transphobic one. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable, should be deprecated: mouthpiece of a hate group, clear fake news. Sceptre (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable, on the grounds that they are apparently willing to say anything that pops into their heads. XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Reiable. The fact that it represents a LGB viewpoint minus the T should not disqualify it in any way. Condemning something as “transphobic” because it places emphasis on LGB news and specific concerns of LGB people rather than it being “trans-centred” is a bridge too far for me. It’s not hateful, and it’s not fake. Trans concerns are legitimate, and are freely expressed. The concerns of LGB people deserve the same consideration, and Pink News should not be the only purveyor of that. My two cents. The Queen of Cups V (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that The Queen of Cups V (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
    • There are plenty of well known and reliable LGBT publications beyond just Pink News, such as The Advocate, Out, and Queerty. And all of those sources have a reputation for journalism and fact-checking. This new source from LGB Alliance does not and, from all appearances, has no interest in actual journalism, as even their claimed regular articles are just blatant opinion pieces. SilverserenC 00:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. From a reliability standpoint, the main problem one of the problems with Lesbian and Gay News is that it lacks a track record, and discloses little information about its staff and operations. According to its About Us page, it is operated by "BM Payments Services Ltd", an unknown quantity. Sources are considered reliable when they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and Lesbian and Gay News does not clear that bar. — Newslinger talk 00:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Edited. — Newslinger talk 04:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    The About Us page indicates "accounts@boyz.co.uk" as the "Accounts" contact, so Lesbian and Gay News may be related to Boyz (magazine) in some way. However, the Boyz website does not mention anything that would connect it to Lesbian and Gay News, and this email disclosure is too opaque to draw any conclusions. — Newslinger talk 00:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    It's worth noting that Boyz got into controversy back in November after their twitter account retweeted the LGB alliance [20], which in combination with the email address does indeed suggest that there is some kind of connection. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    Yep. It's by Boyz's David Bridle. See eg his bio here and their fundraising. Although I don't think it particularly matters for this purpose. Urve (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • From a reliability standpoint, the bigger problem is that it's not really a news site - it acts as a mouthpiece for an advocacy group. If you look at the "Reports" section, nearly every single one mentions trans issues, which is really quite odd for a group which has banners declaring it to be "LGB" (no T). First one - "In practice, this prioritises an individual’s self-declared gender identity above the reality of biological sex". Second one - subject objected to "the tension between her own “gender critical” views and Stonewall’s embrace of a “gender identity” position.". Third one - "in practice many such groups have become hostile and judgemental environments where only those with ... the “right” views about gender identity are accepted." Fourth one is about its own legal battles challenging the use of puberty blockers for trans children. Fifth one - "Meanwhile schools adopt aggressive anti-bullying policies to push through trans inclusion under the guise of gender diversity,". Sixth one - well, what can you say?. This is a activist site with an obvious agenda masquerading as news. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable This website is relatively new, and centers lesbians and gay men, as the LGB Alliance centers lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. This website has the right to center who it wants to center, just as trans websites and organizations center trans people. This centering does not constitute that this website is a 'hate-page'. Having a certain contact email address does not mean this website is not reliable. Saying it is 'anti-trans' and thus unreliable is simply disingenuous. Rad Fem Ish (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • If that was the case, then the focus of the articles on said website would be on lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, but they aren't. Almost all of the articles are on anti-trans topics, clearly showing that it is a publication by a hate group. As noted by Black Kite above. SilverserenC 02:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Quite. If I set up a website claiming to be aimed at men, yet all of its "news" was negative stories about women, it would be criticised as misogynist, and quite rightly so. Black Kite (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hate-speech, or simply being critical of some aspects of how the role of gender in the trans community affects their lives as same-sex attracted people? Unless this publication has stated that trans people as people are inherently bad, sinful, criminal, etc - it's not hate-speech towards them. Rad Fem Ish (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC) The website focuses on issues that are important to lesbians and gay men. If you aren't a part of that demographic, you are going to look at those articles/viewpoints very differently. It may even make you uncomfortable, but those are their issues, and they have the right to talk about them. Rad Fem Ish (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Are you under the impression that the main issues that are important to lesbians and gay men involve opposition to trans rights and to gender identity? Because that isn't at all true where I live, and I'd be surprised if it were true anywhere. Newimpartial (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm looking at the articles on the front page. One is a summary of all gay stories around the world. Four are film reviews (two films about gay men and two about lesbians - none trans), one is a theatre review of a play about the AIDS epidemic and one is a profile of a lesbian playwright. One is an interview with a gay writer about his autobiography, Living and Loving in the age of AIDS and one is an interview with a lesbian writer about her autobiography, Trigger Warning.
    Topics covered in the rest are: being a black minority woman in the lesbian community, the UK census not offering separate categories for "gay" and "lesbian", commentary by a transwoman about the Gender Recognition Act, a lament about the loss of lesbian bars, facial feminization surgery, cancel culture and social media, whether or not the word "queer" is still an insult, a talk with the lesbian protestors from the 2018 Pride parade, a profile of a female MP who has been criticised for arguing for single-sex spaces, drag queens' place in the community, a detransitioner (Keira Bell) calling for more mental health support for dysphoria, legal commentary on the appeal of Bell's lawsuit against the Tavistock Centre, a gay male actor arguing that women's rights activists are unfairly branded "hate groups" and abused, an update on the case of a black lesbian lawyer suing her chambers and Stonewall for discrimination, a profile of a lesbian activist and co-founder of the LGB Alliance, and two articles that suggest some same-sex attracted kids are identifying as trans to fit in better.
    Definitely, there is content that takes the gender critical POV. But there is more content that is about the lives of gays and lesbians, films, books and theatre about gays and lesbians, etc. I don't think anyone can fairly say this publication is "mostly" about trans people, and it certainly isn't hate speech. There is nothing portraying trans people as bad or predatory. Everyone has the right to disagree with gender critical viewpoints, but they should not be disallowed as sources any more than the opposite viewpoint should be. Fair representation includes both sides of a controversial debate. Lilipo25 (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable, as Thryduulf says. Unlike Blueboar, I don't see any reason to trust them even for attributed opinions: WP:BIASEDSOURCEs are (as that page notes) not inherently unreliable, but when biased sources have no track record of factual reporting, we have no basis on which to trust they're reporting opinions correctly rather than skewing them to support their POV. (Unless one means LAGN's own attributed opinion, in which case... under what circumstances would Wikipedia be citing hate groups? "Wikipedia should cite hate groups more," Breitbart said. "We are being silenced," Stormfront stated. "Cancelled, even," said LAGN.) -sche (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Opinions are just that, opinions. Everyone has the right to have one. By biased, do you mean centering lesbians and gay men? The website centers lesbians and gay men, and the news and opinion pieces are through lesbians' and gay men's lenses. I don't get the point of penalizing a website because its POV isn't to your liking. Rad Fem Ish (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    Are you under the impression that the main news and opinion pieces relevant to lesbians and gay men are about opposition to gender identity and to trans rights? Because that seems to be the only thing they cover. Newimpartial (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not RS Bias doesn't inherently make them reliable or not nor should being transexclusionary (nor does it suggest they are representative of a given group's POV). My concern would be this appears to be a very new source with no track record. Thus we don't know if they get the facts right and we can assume, at this point in time, no one is referencing their work for either statements of opinion or fact. Thus we shouldn't either. The source may evolve over time but that needs to be seen first. Even if their POV was uncontroversial the question of track record would stil be a concern since we need weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Where did this website say it was anti-trans rights? Did it say it was against equal educational opportunities, equal employment opportunities, equal housing opportunities, the right to organize, the right to camaraderie, the right to representation, the right to vote...? If it didn't say that, then you can't say it is against trans-rights. If it takes the stance that it is against gender identity, it has the right to do so. That also doesn't equal anti-trans. The website does not center trans people, and it isn't supposed to. It is for gay men and lesbians. Rad Fem Ish (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    If it doesn't cater to trans people, why are nearly all of it's articles about trans people and/or their rights? Not that their POV is related to their reliability. Thryduulf (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    Rad Fem Ish says, If it (the site) takes the stance that it is against gender identity, it has the right to do so. That also doesn't equal anti-trans. The website does not center trans people, and it isn't supposed to. - I would make the argument that by presenting gender identity as the major threat facing gay and lesbian people, the site is precisely "centering" trans people - as a key existential threat, and "othering" them at the same time. The idea that the standing of (non-trans) gay and lesbian people is threatened, for example, by the availability of and desire for facial feminization surgery is a rather unique "take" on gay and lesbian experience. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable: The site is young but I checked out a few articles where I had previous knowledge and they had basic facts right, with a clear distinction between opinion and fact. That may change over time but those I looked at were in keeping with what I have seen in other WP:RS such as Newsweek or The Guardian. Certainly WP:RSOPINION so far, so WP:AGF and watch for issues later. Rorybowman (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Rorybowman (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
    WP:AGF is a policy that applies to Wikipedia editors, not external publications. The reliable sources guideline demands sources with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and a new source with no track record – such as Lesbian and Gay News – does not meet that requirement. — Newslinger talk 04:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. — Newslinger talk 04:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable I don't think this conversation should have been opened for a few months, tbh, so that we could have seen LGB's track record better before making determinations (and I have to say that it's unlikely to be even considered fairly with a write-up like this one). But since it has been, I have read through almost everything on the site and find it very reliable for factual statements. It covers topics in the lives of gays and lesbians that are given little to no coverage elsewhere, like being a racial minority in the lesbian community. It's well-written and avoids sensationalism. I've seen comments claiming that it covers "mostly anti-trans" topics but this is certainly false. The majority of articles aren't about trans people at all. There is a gender critical viewpoint that certainly many editors strongly disagree with, but this should not disqualify it in any way from being considered a reliable source. The views are presented from the POV of women's and lesbian's rights and don't depict trans people as bad or predatory. It's a reliable source as far as I can see and shouldn't be discounted due to personal disagreements with its views. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Is it factual that "Transgenderism, transing LGB youth, is just the latest form of homophobia"? Urve (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Urve, you represented that very dishonestly in the into to this discussion - that is a direct quote, attributed to someone and in quotation marks. You claimed "They report as fact, for instance, the notion that..." and do not mention that they are quoting someone in the article and make it clear those are the subject's words and not represented as fact or as the voice of the publication. That's a huge difference and I'm sorry, you should not have biased the intro so heavily. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
        • WP:NPA. It is attributed, but it is also reported as fact that the comment is made "astutely". Synonyms include intelligently, correctly, wisely. Is it factual? Urve (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Opinions can be astute (and are frequently described as such). It is an opinion that is correctly attributed to the person giving it and which you falsely represented as being presented in the voice of the publication as fact. You have every right to disagree with that person's opinion, but not to misrepresent it as the publication's own voice. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
            • It is reported as fact that the speaker "accurately assess[ed the] situations or people; perceptively" when they said that transgenderism is homophobia. Is that factual? Urve (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
              • Urve, it does not say that at all and you need to stop making false claims to bias a discussion. Likewise, please stop haranguing me over and over with a question I have already answered, because I disagree with you. I understand this is a very contentious topic and feelings run very high, but this is not conducive to mutual discussion or debate. Thank you.Lilipo25 (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Those reports are about how gender identity and some aspects of trans activism are affecting THEM as GAY MEN and LESBIANS. Gender identity and trans activism affects them in a big way, unbeknownst to other demographics of people. Lesbians and gay men have a right to talk about it and define it in their own way. Also there are other sections on the site such as books, films, theatre, and interviews. Rorybowman mentioned the sources, so no need to go back over that. It's a new website, and again, penalizing it because that POV runs counter to yours or another group's is petty. Rad Fem Ish (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • reliable This website contains a number of articles, both opinion and factual, that are of relevance to people who are lesbian and gay. It has a range of contributors and viewpoints. It is a new website but the articles I checked were factually correct. As @lilipo25 states, the website is a gender critical viewpoint that some editors disagree with. Of course, this should not disqualify the site from being considered a reliable source. Reliability should be the sole factor in assessing the site. The articles I read and checked were factual and reliable. MandyMB (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that MandyMB (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • reliable I am bemused by the reactions here. I have followed Pink News for some time and am surprised PN is considered a reliable source, It seems mainly filled with hit pieces and unresearched articles. I have read most articles in Lesbian and Gay News and am pleasantly surprised by the quality of journalism and the balanced reporting, seeing it is a publication with a gender-critical stance. I'm sure many will disagree with its editorial policy, but that is no reason to reject it as a source. MCleaver (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Mcleaver (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Anyone else noticing a bunch of SPAs showing up to this discussion, particularly ones with account creations within the past two weeks? And they seem to all have a particular stance on the topic. Just an interesting observation. SilverserenC 06:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable for news, reliable for stating (POV) opinion, in the same way as we'd treat far-right US news sources as being reliable only for confirming the opinions of people quoted there. Though I'd hope that generally there'd be better sources than a "news" site set up with a hate group. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. Biased sources are fine, but this is a single-issue publication in a highly controversial space of political discourse, and I don't see how citing it would improve Wikipedia.--JBchrch (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not Reliable No reputation of fact-checking, fringe position on matters of sexual identity, and prone to propaganda. I would compare it to the Völkischer Beobachter, as they are little more than mouthpieces of political organizations. Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable in lieu of someone describing its fact-checking process. Most of the comments above are about people agreeing or disagreeing with the website's opinion. Whether its opinion biases its factual content to the point of unreliability is a question to ask after working out what the corrections processes are, whether the writers are professionals and what fact-checking protocols there are. I see one of their journalists, Jo Bartosch, has written for some reliable publications and some less reliable publications. Unclear so far. I can't find much out about other journalists from random spotchecks. And I can't find anything out about their editorial process (their "About" pages seem distinctly like those of websites I generally categorise as "assumed unreliable" when writing articles or conducting quality reviews). So unreliable until someone can provide evidence of known-to-be-reliable sources citing the website and describing what their fact-checking processes are and giving a more compelling case of their journalists' credentials. — Bilorv (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it is reliable for the opinion of the contributors but unreliable for now in terms of factual coverage. I tend to agree with Bilorv, I see no evidence of fact checking because the publication is so new. Classification as a "hate group" seems entirely unwarranted, although I can understand why many transpeople and advocates of the same take great exception the position it takes. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    I think you misunderstand, the source in question is the publication of an organization that has been fairly characterized as a hate group (again, these guys are extremely open and clear about who they hate and why) but the source is not itself contended to be a hate group. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    While not necessarily agreeing with them, I don't personally consider the LGBA to be a hate group, they don't seem to tick any of the boxes. I am aware that some people consider them to be, but I haven't seen any evidence of this. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    I don’t personally consider them to be one either, but it is a fair characterization which appears to be supported by WP:RS (not just transpeople and advocates of the same). Wikipedia doesn’t designate hate groups, that isn’t part of our process and the term as used by the posters here does not appear to be factually inaccurate or have much bearing on reliability concerns. For example Falun Gong’s Epoch Times is clearly deprecatable regardless of whether an editor considers FG to be a cult or religion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    I know some campaigners and politicians describe them as such. That allows us to quote the campaigners not to say they are a hate group in wikivoice, therefore nor should we automatically exclude this website as such due to its connections to them. Neutral academic sources use the term "trans-exclusionary" that is absolutely fair comment.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Too new to say anything. There were only launched a week ago ("We only launched on Friday but we have been overwhelmed..."), and spell out their viewpoint. It is simply too early.--Bob not snob (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable Treat it the same as all the other in-house publications of fringe organizations. If we don’t use scientific racists, young earthers, or climate change loonies, why would we give a platform to TERFs? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Should be blacklisted ASAP.Moxy- 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • This RfC is premature. There's no way at this point in time that this source can be deemed either reliable or not reliable because it's too soon for anyone to have an opinion based on its publication history. The creation of this news site was announced in February 2021; the announcement was made by the founder, David Briddle: "Read our announcement here on why we're launching Lesbian and Gay News: "Most UK and US lesbian and gay news outlets now embrace an all-encompassing umbrella belief in LGBTQIA+ as the only perspective through which they are prepared to report the world."" – February 3, 2021, Twitter. As seen in the above-noted "We only launched...." link, it was officially launched on Friday, February 26. It has published a mix of articles, such as "A teacher writes on why we must include lesbian and gay history in our schools", "Living and Loving in the Age of AIDS by Derek Frost: this poignant and informative autobiography records a devastating era for gay men", "Loving: A Photographic History of Men in Love, 1850s-1950s", "Out and proud lesbian writer, performer and activist Rose Collis: The show must go on". This RfC needs to be shelved. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Not sure how time is supposed to change the clear unreliability of the "news" source. Also, you really had to go out of your way to cherrypick those articles. The featured article on the top of their website right now is Dysphoric – Fleeing Womanhood Like a House on Fire: An interview with documentary film-maker Vaishnavi Sundar, which is promoting an anti-trans film. And let's look at the first one you listed. The teacher one includes the factually incorrect line "Gay and lesbian historical inaccuracies run rampant, from claiming the Stonewall Riots were started by Marsha P Johnson, to suggesting that any woman in trousers was actually ‘trans’." And the rest are reviews you have to go down the page a bit to find, past the myriad of other anti-trans articles. SilverserenC 07:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      Don't focus on me. Focus on the fact that Lesbian and Gay News has no track record. Whatever the initial variety of articles may be, the publication is still too new for anyone to have an opinion about its journalistic quality. There are many publications that I, personally, may not like but that doesn't mean they aren't a legitimate source for use in Wikipedia articles. Time will tell with this one. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      The lack of a track record of fact checking actually makes it unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes, regardless of the accuracy of it's content. However, in this case spot checks of the articles that it has published to date show that all of them contain either clear and blatant factual inaccuracies, nothing but opinion, and/or an undifferentiated mix of fact and opinion. All three of these would disqualify an established source from being regarded as reliable (with the possible exception that some its opinion's might be DUE, but that cannot be the case for a source with no reputation). This is all completely independent of what its opinions are. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      If an author with an established reputation pens an opinion piece in the Lesbian and Gay News ... that opinion is as legitimate for citing as an opinion published in a different publication considered controversial but still used as a source. Too many responses to this RfC display an obvious lack of objectivity. Just because someone doesn't like some of the contents of a publication does not render that publication unacceptable for an encyclopedic project. But, believe when I say, do not waste your time responding to me as it will not make a difference in my opinion regarding this RfC -- which is that at this time it is jumping the gun. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      If the author is a subject matter expert and their opinions are WP:DUE then we could cite LAGN for the attributed opinions, however it is always preferable to cite such opinions from reliable sources per WP:RSOPINION. Opinions reported only in an unreliable and/or very small publication are very unlikely to be DUE as they are unlikely to be representative of the views of whatever wider group they claim to represent. See also Aquillion's comment below. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable, not even for opinion; effectively just a personal website with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. I would avoid even using it for opinion, since how can we know that it even accurately represents the opinions of anti-trans activists? Taking what could be a handful of random cranks on the internet and presenting it as representative of a movement or a broad swath of opinion isn't the appropriate way to cover opinions, let alone facts; there should be plenty of higher-quality sources that can be used for comparable opinions if we require them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    That’s not how citing opinions works. Even “Mein Kampf” is reliable for stating the opinions of its author. Granted, there are very limited situations in which it would be appropriate to mention that particular author’s opinion... but IN those limited situations it is reliable. That will be true here as well. The limit when discussing opinion is a function of DUE/UNDUE weight, not reliability. ANY source is a reliable primary source for itself. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    That is untrue; you are thinking of WP:RSSELF or WP:ABOUTSELF citations, which are different than citing something via WP:RSOPINION. WP:RSSELF requires that the person being cited be a subject-matter expert in the area their opinion is being cited for, even when cited solely for opinion, while WP:ABOUTSELF generally restricts them to articles about themselves and their activities; it does not allow them to be arbitrarily cited for their opinions in other articles. WP:RSOPINION is much more restrictive: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. Note the some and the extremely restrictive nature of the prime example. While WP:RSOPINION sometimes allows a slightly more relaxed standard than that provided the source is broadly reliable, it is absolutely not a blank check - you could not, for example, cite a Reddit post via WP:RSOPINION, even if the identity of the poster was unequivocally established; it would have to pass the much stricter requirements of WP:RSSELF. Otherwise absolutely any source could be used with in-line attribution, which is simply not true - it isn't a matter of WP:DUE; even when using an in-line citation and therefore presenting it as an opinion, WP:RS still applies. WP:RSOPINION imposes additional requirements when citing things from a RS that are presented as opinion; it does not allow people to cite opinions to completely unreliable sources - it (or at least the venue where it is published) must still, broadly, meet the requirements of fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS imposes. "Mein Kampf" is citable because it was published by a reputable publisher, not because WP:RSOPINION allows us to cite opinions to whatever we please - if, hypothetically, Hitler had a Reddit account or a website comparable to this one, we couldn't cite it for opinions outside of the very narrow allowances of WP:RSSELF / WP:ABOUTSELF. Under limited circumstances we could use such a website to cite what the author believes in articles about them (and nowhere else), but such a source absolutely, positively cannot be used to imply eg. "this is what people with this opinion believe in general" in a broad article about that topic - generally speaking, only opinions published in sources that pass WP:RS, or things by subject-matter experts, can be used in that fashion. That is the meaning of WP:RSOPINION saying some rather than all; we must still have quality sources even for opinions. Otherwise (among other dangers), citing an opinion to a source that fails WP:RS could result in eg. a random crank's opinion getting presented as if they represent people who they don't. --Aquillion (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    I've learned a lot through your well-written comment. Thank you; will have to do some more thinking about this issue for the future. Urve (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable - Too new, and anti-trans sites are really just reliable for their own opinions, not factual reporting. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable relatively new, with a clear bias and no good track record of reliable reporting. Opinions could be attributed but are probably undue weight. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable for most of the reasons that have already been stated. The site is very new and clearly exists primarily to publish anti-trans thinkpieces. Potentially reliable as a source of the opinions of its contributors, but certainly not for anything factual. Aquaticonions (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable The original content (even those under 'Reports') are all opinion based, so there's no original factual content. The interviews (which I would consider the site as a whole to be reliable for) are just syndicated from Boyz (magazine), so all informative content can easily be found from another source. Uses x (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable for facts, but I would allow it for attributing opinions. I hate getting political here, but I have to do it. To think some idiots think that the trans "movement" came out of activists instead of science, yet this is an anti-trans activist site that goes against all reliable research proving trans people are valid. I can't wait for Mark Dice, Steven Crowder, Actual Justice Warrior, Sargon of Akkad, J.K. Rowling, Tucker Carlson, and Ben Shapiro to play the "cancel culture" card here in knowing editors won't be able to cite lies from bad-faith website like this. HumanxAnthro (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable, some the articles would probably be considered hate speech in several countries, their lead article today is a good example of this. John Cummings (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of Aveleyman.com

Have any of you had any experience with the Aveleyman.com website to know whether it is reliable? I have seen it used as a source in a couple of biographies. I searched the Noticeboard archives and found no mention of it, and I can't see anything on the site that tells about sources of its content. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Never seen it, but IMO it screams WP:SPS. Not the established subject-matter expert kind. "This year I thought I'd have a crack at something like it." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Forbes India Brand Connect

I wanted to confirm whether Brand Connect is paid/sponsored advertising for Forbes India, and whether that should be updated in the RSP. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Brand Connect articles in Forbes India are labeled with "PAID POST", which indicates that they are sponsored content and should be considered generally unreliable.
Also, note that Forbes India (forbesindia.com) is not the same as Forbes (forbes.com) (RSP entry). In 2013, R. Jagannathan – the editor-in-chief of Firstpost who later became the editor-in-chief of the generally unreliable Swarajya (RSP entry) – took over Forbes India and the top editors were fired. Afterward, the staff of Forbes India was consolidated with the teams of other Network18 properties, and as of 2013, an "integrated newsroom" of Network18 journalists started producing content for not only Forbes India, but also Firstpost, Moneycontrol.com, and IBN Live. — Newslinger talk 06:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Walkerville Times - Cedar Point

This source is cited multiple times at the Cedar Point article in its history section (source #10) and seems legit to me, based on the author's credentials. Looking for a few second opinions, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Problematic scholar

I believe that Garnik Asatrian's works should be deprecated and should not be considered RS. It is especially urgent since he is frequently used on Wikipedia, especially to discredit Kurds.

I could write pages and pages about the issues surrounding him, both in his works but also interviews that clearly showcase his contempt towards Kurds but I did make this section (Garnik Asatrian#Views and criticism) months ago that does display the issues concisely. I'm therefore going to refer to that section here. An editor also made an entry on him on this board ten years ago [21] but received no reply at all, so I'll try this time.

The problems with Asatrian lies both in his works but also his statements in interviews. An example of this is that he discredits his own unreferenced claims. In his (in)famous work from 2009[22], he writes "As for Luri... generally regarded by Kurdish authors as a Kurdish dialect, it is related to the South-Western, Persic group and is a radically different dialect, rather close to New Persian. (see Vahman/Asatrian 1995) (page 11)" Which Kurdish authors? Are we talking about scholars of Kurdish origin or? The 1995 reference he does mention is 'Poetry of the Baxtiãrís' which is a collection of Bakhtiari poems and is a reference for the second part of the statement and does not contain any rebuke of any Kurdish author.

Then we have his interviews which are also mentioned at Garnik Asatrian#Views and criticism. Thankfully I'm not the only one who have noticed the problem with Asatrian as even researchers have questioned his statements (i.e. expert Rodziewicz).

He's also a member Armenian Revolutionary Federation which insinuates he's an Armenian nationalist. As mentioned, Rodziewicz questioned his neutrality and believes that his positions stems from the Armenian [nationalist] attitude towards Kurds. Asatrian himself said in the Golos Armenii interview in 2006 that: "The creation of a Kurdish state - whether on the territory of Turkey or Iraq - is a great threat to our national interests." Heck, he even advised the Armenian government to close all Kurdish schools out of fear of a growing Kurdish nationalism in the country.

Thus, I hope I can gather support in making him be considered not reliable on Wikipedia. --Semsûrî (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Labelling scholars reliable or unreliable is almost certainly an exercise in futility and I don’t see this guy being so far off the rails as to be WP:FRINGE. Attribution is key, we shouldn’t be taking this scholar’s opinion and placing it in wikivoice but I think that an attributed opinion from him among other opinions might be WP:DUE in some circumstances. He does seem to be used to represent a certain (as you note non-neutral) viewpoint by WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The main reason I felt compelled to make this entry was because of the way in which he has been used on Wikipedia. Sure some of his writings can be used as a reference in some circumstances and he does also work on other subjects than Kurds, but the divergent/controversial opinions on Kurds that clearly are a result of his personal contempt for Kurds are being presented in a way to question Kurdish history and roots. Frankly, I wouldn't use him on anything that concerns Kurds. If non-controversial opinion of his can be found elsewhere, we should use those scholars. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Chronos Encyclopeadia

Hi Folks! Does anybody consider the Russian Chronos encyclopedia to be reliable as a source? It is located here: [23]. I have an editor who is using it at: Draft:Peter Moskatov and I have a feeling it is a bit dodgy as it doesn't even have a site x509 certificate. It could be good, but don't know. scope_creepTalk 19:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"The website had been Russia's largest online history resource, widely used by scholars in Russia and elsewhere as a unique source of biographical and historical material." [24] and "Hrono.ru offers a chronology in Russian. This chronology is very detailed and can be viewed by century, by clicking on any of the century or decade links seen at the top of the page" [25] seem to put in the reliable side. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I would like to see some evidences that it is widely used by Russian scholars. It seems overwhelming majority of authors as well as the editor-in-chief are self-appointed "historians", although some authors (Teslya) have PhD in history and are real scholars. It seems it is mostly a self-published source according to our criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Do you think we need a RFC since we have two opposing views? scope_creepTalk 19:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Encyclopedia Chronos

This is an RFC to determine if the Encyclopedia Chronos is a reliable source. It is located at [26] It has no Wikipedia page and the site itself doesn't have an SSL certificate, perhaps indicating it has been run by a team of volunteers with little money. It is a Russian encyclopedia that I've seen used in multiple places but up to this point, it has not been investigated as an RS. There has been no prior discussion apart from the previous two statements. scope_creepTalk 12:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


Which of the following best describes the reliability of Encyclopedia Chronos?

scope_creepTalk 12:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Responses

It has very little or no original materials. The materials are mostly taken from other sources, some reliable, some not reliable, some copyrighted, some free, some horribly outdated. It should be judged on case-by-case basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sky News

It has been mentioned in previous discussions but I could not find specific discussions about the source [27] nor is it listed at WP:RSP. The website is here [28], it has been broadcasting since 1989 and has a detailed corrections policy. In addition, according to the website it is editorially independent part of Sky UK. So is Sky News generally reliable? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Sky was reliable even in the Murdoch days. More akin to the Times than the Sun. Sceptre (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

New America Terrorism Database

New America (organization) created a database which they describe as "comprehensive, up-to-date source...about terrorist activity in the United States since 9-11. You can find a link to it at the bottom of this page. The database and corresponding research is used as an RS on multiple pages on wikipedia already however I couldn't find any discussion of it in the archives. Would like to get some clarity on how authoritative this organization and their research is.Nweil (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the issue, it isn't of reliability. The editor wishes to add a "terrorism" category at Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl‎, and thinks because their raw data is hosted in a file called "terror_plots.csv" that's an acceptable reference. It's probably an acceptable reference for their attributed opinion (which already appears in the article), but not an outright statement of fact. The raw data includes entries such as Murder of James Craig Anderson (case prosecuted, no terrorism charges nor evidence it's commonly considered an act of terrorism), Kenosha unrest shooting (case underway, no terrorism charges nor evidence it's commonly considered an act of terrorism), 2021 Atlanta spa shootings (investigation underway, no terrorism investigation underway nor evidence it's commonly considered an act of terrorism) and probably plenty more if I bothered to investigate the list more fully. As such, there is no way their opinion can be used without attribution. FDW777 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
New America's research into terrorism is already cited on Wikipedia here) for Further Reading plus here, here,  here, here, here and here as an RS. Here a database of theirs appears in the info box, used to quantify the number of drone strikes in Yemen. So the question does not just apply to the page you are referring to. It has quite a large reach. Regarding the specific incidents you mentioned, your determination that those are not terrorist incidents would seem to fall under original research. I pass no judgement on why they are in the database, only that the author clearly thinks they should be in there. And also to be clear, the database is just underlaying the overall research paper, which is available on JSTOR. I am not pushing for any outcome.  Perfectly open to whatever consensus is reached.  Nweil (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Based on description, the database provides a compilation of already published data. People who compiled this information seem to have a good level of expertise. There are two questions. (1) Are they known for making any errors or false claims? I do not see any such criticisms on page New America (organization). (2) Do they provide direct linking of every case in the database to the source publications? (in a biological database that would be links to Pubmed). If the answers are "no" and "yes", then they might qualify as a weak RS (not for significant BLP claims). My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Could you link the JSTOR research? The database is based on it, right? --Chillabit (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
As regards the Portland shooting, these are the sources for that part of the document: The arrest warrant, The Seattle Times, Vice News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times (three times), CNN, and ProPublica. Out of these, the only one that I can tell sort of calls it a terrorist attack is ProPublica, but it's not terribly explicit about it, is it? Am I missing something here? --Chillabit (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Your comment seems more suited for the talk page of that article. Is your determination that New America is unreliable? Nweil (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of its overall general reliability, of which I don't have a specific comment on, the claim it is being cited for definitely matters. This is true of any source. For the category proposal being made at Talk:Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl#Category addition reverted, the presence of that incident in a list compiled by New America isn't enough on its own. Now citing it with several other supporting sources that list it similarly, the debate begins to verge in favor of New America's position, but to move it into slam-dunk territory, academic sources discussing the terrorism label of this specific incident in prose is needed. Is there anything like that, or does it just have a presence on a long list that appears in the background of a larger study? If it's the latter, then I don't think that's enough for this specific category claim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Is the Daily Signal + congressional record RS for a congressional statement?

On the Andy Ngo talk page there is a discussion relating to the recent removal of content relating to Andy Ngo's 2020 congressional testimony[[29]]. An editor removed a paragraph which basically stated that Ngo testified that, "violence against journalists was often perpetrated by protesters rather than by law enforcement officers."[[30]] (Daily Signal article[[31]], copy of testimony from congressional records [[32]]) This sentence is easily and obviously verifiable in the written testimony (first paragraph). The argument used to delete this content from the article is the Daily Signal got the content from the Daily Caller which is deprecated thus Daily Signal = Daily Caller and should be removed. I don't think this is a valid reason. The Regardless of the Daily Caller connection, the Daily Signal maintains editorial control in this case and the simple statement can be verified to a clear primary source. Additionally, the Daily Caller was deprecated because editors argued it presented false information. In this case we can verify the statements so false content isn't an issue and this isn't a question of interpretation by a source. I won't argue that the Daily Signal is a top source or without bias but just as extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, simple claims that can be verified by primary sources shouldn't require extensive sourcing. The Daily Signal passes our basic RS standards and thus should be acceptable for a statement which we can independently verify. What are the group thoughts? Springee (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC) ‎ Note the discussion below is conflating two issues. Some editors are questioning if the Daily Signal is a reliable source. That is not the question at hand. The question at hand is if a source syndicates content from a deprecated source do we treat that as material from the deprecated source or the site hosting the content. As a local hypothetical, if the WSJ syndicated a story originally by the Daily Caller, would we say it's RS'ed because the WSJ is publishing it or would we say it's unreliable because a deprecated source is the original author. Springee (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Signal is not an independent reliable source - it's the house organ of The Heritage Foundation, which provides all of its funding. A cursory glance at the current homepage finds five articles labeled "Commentary" (including one which declares that anti-Asian racism is a left-wing anti-American lie) and only one labeled "News," and that one is a dog-whistle about the 2020 presidential election. At best I would put it on par with Media Matters for America - usable for attributed opinion, but not for unattributed statements of fact. If the only source which can be found is a Daily Caller article republished by The Heritage Foundation, I would argue it also fails WP:DUE. "Deprecated source republished by an explicitly-partisan source" is not a particularly strong basis for inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The Daily Signal has been discussed several times in the past. Editors here have expressed concerns related to using it for some topics (climate change for example) but the discussions do not say the source doesn't meet out basic RS standards. It has an editorial board, is cited by others etc. Since the statements of fact can be verified why are you concerned about publishing false information in this case? Springee (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not an independent reliable source for facts - it's an outlet for partisan commentary and clearly partisan-slanted "news." For example, this article, labeled "News," is an uncritical regurgitation of what two conservative academics said at a Heritage Foundation event. It contains no dissenting views, no broader context, and not even the slightest hint of an attempt at balance. Just "hey, look, these two conservatives said something at an event our sponsoring organization organized." It's more akin to a press release than a news story. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not Reliable - This is a syndicated piece written by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The ref has already been replaced by a Fox News article, and two more reliable sources (The Intercept and The Independent) have been brought forward at article talk. There's absolutely no reason to make an exception for a deprecated source in this case.
Regarding the question of verifiability: If you wanted to learn about a murder trial, would you choose a source that just repeated bits and pieces of the suspect's best friend's testimony with no context or analysis? –dlthewave ☎ 04:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Correction: The other sources I mentioned (Fox News, The Intercept and The Independent) cover different hearings entirely. I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources covering the June 29, 2020 hearing mentioned in The Daily Signal. –dlthewave ☎ 15:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Again, it was published by the Daily Signal, not the Daily Caller thus we look at the RS status of the Daily Signal. Additionally, we can verify the content via the primary record. The Intercept and Independent don't state what Ngo said in a way that can be verified and both are heavy with their own author's opinion/commentary. Since they don't support Ngo's statements they aren't a substitutable source. This also doesn't address the key question here which is your opinion that a reliable source publishing content from a deprecated source automatically unreliable. As Lionel noted the Daily Signal was quoted by Fox News, CBS, Slate, and Daily News (New York)[[33]]. Springee (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable; as a publication of the Heritage Foundation, the Daily Signal defaults to falling under our normal assumption of unreliability for think-tanks and their publications (see eg. [34][35]) A think tank's purpose is to push policy, not to perform fact-checking and accuracy, and this applies to their publications unless we have a strong reason to think otherwise, rendering them generally unreliable. The only place where it would really make sense to use it is in an article about the Heritage Foundation or the Daily Signal itself. Using them to cite the opinion of a BLP - let alone the opinion of a BLP making sweeping WP:EXCEPTIONAL statements about third parties (fourth parties, since Ngo is already a third party here?) is completely unacceptable. And, obviously, the idea that a patiently generally-unreliable source like the Daily Signal could be made usable by combining it with a primary source is plainly absurd. -Aquillion (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Why would any of your concerns not equally apply to sources like SPLC? Also, this isn't an opinion but a basic statement of fact which can be verified via primary sources. Are you suggesting the claim in question is factually wrong? WP:V says the reliability of the source depends on the nature of the claim. In this case the claim is easy to verify so why would we question this source's reliability in this case? Springee (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The SPLC is cited only for its own opinion, and it is used in that way, with attribution, only because its reputation gives it enough significance that its opinion is considered widely-relevant; it's treated as the gold standard on hate groups and the like by numerous other sources, yet it is still not used for facts the way you're trying to use the Daily Signal, and is only used within the narrow area under which it has a widely-acknowledged expertise. The Heritage Foundation and the Daily Signal have no such reputation; damningly, the best anyone could find when trying to justify its use was a handful of passing mentions focused on a single story - nowhere near satisfying WP:USEBYOTHERS, and far, far short from the overwhelming and extensive level of respect the SPLC gets. Finally, while WP:V is central to RS, it's not the sole reason we require RSes - using something from a primary source to make an exceptional implication, without a proper secondary source, is WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Some additional things I turned up: This paper on Coronavirus misinformation classifies it under junk health news. The graph in this paper classifies it as "hyper-partisan news" and, more importantly, puts it below Infowars in terms of reliability. This chapter classifies it among sources that are right-biased, often fail the fact checks, and some of their news are misleading and often appeal to emotions and stereotypes (though it cites Media Bias / Fact Check for this.) This paper lists it as part of how a story on an academic paper was quickly buried in an avalanche of fake news, misinformation, and disinformation emanating from the right-wing media networks. This does not look like coverage of a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable for this purpose The Daily Signal is cited by others as shown in prior discussions. The source has an editorial board and the other structures we expect of a reliable source. It certainly is biased but that isn't by itself reason for exclusion. Additionally, in this case the basic statements of fact are 100% verifiable via primary sources. Springee (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The Daily Signal is cited by others as shown in prior discussions. Absolutely not. The context of use matters. Putting aside Fox for obvious reasons (a source that lacks a consensus on its reliability for politics can't credibly endorse others), the other "uses" cited in the single comment you keep bringing up do not satisfy WP:USEBYOTHERS. Slate (in its own blog!) describes it as Lawmakers may have a whole new line of questioning from a report published this week by investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson on the Daily Signal, a blog funded by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation. Not only does this describe it as a blog, it also makes it clear it was covered solely because lawmakers were discussing it, ie. it is the news, it's not something Slate considers reliable. Slate is openly dismissive. The Daily News (which is likewise yellow in RSP) likewise makes it clear that the Daily News is the story here, not the source: Raymond Maxwell, formerly head of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, made the accusation to the Daily Signal, a publication backed by the conservative Heritage Foundation. It surfaced as the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares to hold its first hearing this week. These are not WP:USEBYOTHERS, and the fact that someone tried to push them in a previous discussion (and that this is, I would assume, the best they could find in a Google News search, a single case where the Daily Signal was mentioned because it was the focus of the story) underlines the fact that this is not a RS. --Aquillion (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Springee, you seem to have omitted your signature on the opening post. You can't initiate the discussion and then vote that your own proposal is reliable. ValarianB (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I just added it. This shouldn't be a !vote to begin with but why can't the person who starts the discussion express their opinion. I think we have two questions and one is getting missed. Dlthewave's justification for removal was not that the Daily Signal wasn't reliable. Their claim was that that any thing that is effectively sourced to the Daily Caller is automatically deprecated. I don't see how that is true. If the WSJ published a story sourced to the Daily Caller (yes a hypothetical) would we say the story stands on the fact that the WSJ is the publisher or would we say it has to go because the Daily Caller is the original creator. Incidentally, this again shows an issue with our push to deprecate so many sources. No one has claimed the claim in question is inaccurate. Springee (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Why don't we apply the same standard to the SPLC? Springee (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
That's what we call Whataboutism, I'm afraid. Not to mention the sledgehammer you are dropping on the universal opposition to your proposal, something which sometimes winds up as the building block for topic bans. ValarianB (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I share your bludgeoning concern, Valarian, and it's also reflective of Springee's behavior at the PragerU and Andy Ngo pages. From a POV standpoint it's especially concerning that Springee was recently making the exact opposite argument (that reliability should be judged by the original source material, not the publisher) regarding Yahoo News [36][37]. –dlthewave ☎ 23:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent my arguments. They are not the same in these cases. Springee (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • As I said above, the SPLC has an overwhelming reputation within its relatively narrow topic area, which justifies prominently including its opinion as WP:DUE within that area of expertise - it's the gold standard for studying hate groups to the point where the majority of discussions of the topic in reliable sources cite its evaluations. But even then, when we use it, we only present things cited to it directly as the SPLC's opinion, not as fact. The Heritage Foundation has no such reputation in the area of... Andy Ngo? Congressional testimony? Antifa? I don't think the Heritage Foundation has a strong reputation even within its wheelhouse (and the Daily Signal certainly does not), but even if it did this would be outside it. And yet you're trying to use it for a statement of fact! The two things aren't comparable. --Aquillion (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
This isn't bad whatabouttery, I think, but a request to ask why the two cases are different. I'd put it this way: the default with think tanks and their organs is to regard them as deprecated, since most of them are glorified propaganda ops. A few of them are better than that, and produce quality research and have meaningful editorial principles. These are the exceptional cases, which can be used as reliable sources, although generally with some caveats. The SPLC is one of the few think tanks which do not deserve to be deprecated, while we can document that the Heritage Foundation is as bad as think tanks generally tend to be, so we allow one as a source and not the other. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the SPLC doesn't have a history of promoting climate change denial while taking money from fossil fuel interests. Something which clearly demonstrates a corrupted relationship with scientifically factual reporting. --Chillabit (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
See my question above. If we replace Daily Signal with WSJ would we reach the same conclusion? Perhaps it's a signal that not all Daily Caller content is unreliable. Springee (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I am not aware of any instance in which The Wall Street Journal (RSP entry) has syndicated an article from The Daily Caller or The Daily Caller News Foundation in its entirety. But yes, if such an article exists, it would also inherit the unreliablity of the original. — Newslinger talk 14:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm asking as a hypothetical. My view is if the WSJ is willing to run the content then they are putting their editorial stamp on the material and thus it becomes "reliable". Consider a case where a car company chooses to rebrand another company's product as their own (Toyota and the current BMW-Supra). Which company is ultimately on the hook for the content? Toyota feels it's acceptable to sell a BMW based car as the Supra and they are the ones who have to handle any warrantly/legal issues. If there is a recall Toyota has to own it, not BMW. Same thing here. If the material has gone through the WSJ's editorial review and the WSJ is responsible for the content and any retractions why would we treat the content as something from the Daily Caller? Since you are arguing the reverse how would you treat content written by say the AP but syndicated by the Daily Caller? Again, this is a hypothetical to make sure we are being consistent. Springee (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Assuming that there is enough trust in The Daily Caller to keep the original article unmodified, an article from the Associated Press (RSP entry) that is syndicated in The Daily Caller would inherit the reliability of the original. I would prefer to cite the article on the AP's website. If that's not available, I would prefer to cite a syndicated version of the article in a more reliable publication. However, if none of these are available, the syndicated version in The Daily Caller would be acceptable if there is consensus that The Daily Caller can be trusted for syndicating articles from other sources. — Newslinger talk 14:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Well that is consistent but I also think ultimately backwards. If Amazon, Radio Shack, Toyota, REI, Craftsman etc puts their name on a rebranded product the company with the name on the product is ultimately the responsible party. Many shoppers understood that Sears-Craftsman wasn't manufactured by Sears but they also understood that the name came with a level of customer support that the original tool maker may not provide. I see the same thing here, not all readers will realize the content was not written by the WSJ (again a hypothetical). To go a step further, who would bear the legal responsibility if the content was contained slander? Who would the victim take to court? Could the WSJ absolve themselves of responsibility by just saying "we didn't check the content"? Springee (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the product analogy is always that way. Speaking from personal experience, I recently had to file a warranty claim on a rebranded product, and the customer service contact was of the original manufacturer. Back on topic: the legal liability of the published content, I assume, would be determined by the license that is negotiated by the original publisher and the republisher. However, the author of the content is the original publisher and not the republisher.
Here's an example from the other end of the political spectrum: the marginally reliable Salon (RSP entry) syndicates articles from the generally unreliable AlterNet (RSP entry). Those syndicated articles are generally unreliable, and reflect poorly on the reliability of Salon as a whole. — Newslinger talk 14:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not understanding the purpose of this digression anyway. Neither the Daily Signal nor the Daily Caller are reliable, so the Signal covering stuff from the Caller is meaningless. And, obviously, the congressional record is WP:PRIMARY, so we would need a reliable source covering it to use it in an article in a non-trivial way (which this certainly is - extracting a quote from it making WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims without any sort of context or analysis carries the implication that that quote is significant, meaningful, and that the claims made within it pass at least basic due diligence, which nothing here supports. Part of the reason we need reliable secondary sources for such quotes is so we can characterize them properly.) No secondary sources in this chain are reliable, so nothing is satisfied here. --Aquillion (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
It's easy, are we being logically consistent or is the outcome based on our opinions of the specific sources in question. If this is an argument on principle then the outcome wouldn't change if it were the NYT or WSJ vs the Daily Signal. I note that you didn't address that question. Springee (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Your comparison doesn't make any sense. The NYT or the WSJ are generally reliable sources; the Daily Signal is absolutely not. Obviously, per WP:RS and WP:V, the outcome of an WP:RSN discussion changes depending on whether a source generally has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. More specifically, when you ask RSN "is this source sufficient for this claim", you are asking editors for their opinion on whether the source meets the WP:RS / WP:V requirements for what you want to cite to it; so to turn around and say "well you're just giving me your opinions on the reliability of the Daily Signal, what if I had asked about a better source instead" doesn't make any sense. --Aquillion (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
It does make sense. The content was removed not because it was hosted by the Daily Signal. It was removed because it was syndicated from the Daily Caller. Thus I asked a simple question, would we react the same if this were the NYT's site? What is your answer? Springee (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Generally speaking, if a reliable source covers something, it becomes acceptable regardless of their own sources, though I would express a degree of caution for syndicated content in that you'd want to make sure the RS actually applies its editorial controls to what it syndicates - it's a bit different than the NYT writing its own article on something, where we can be confident it's going through their normal process (this isn't usually a problem in practice because sources that heavily use syndicated content from unreliable sources are rarely reliable themselves in the first place for reasons that ought to be obvious.) But that is moot for the purposes of this discussion because the Daily Signal is not reliable - it has no meaningful reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to lend to the things it covers, so something from the Daily Caller isn't improved an iota by being published there. If you expected people to consider whether a piece by the Daily Caller is rendered usable by syndication in the Daily Signal (and therefore inheriting the Daily Signal's reliability) without considering whether the Daily Signal itself is generally reliable then I don't know what to say, since obviously the Daily Signal's reliability is the crux of the argument you're trying to make. Or, in other words - I'd have thought may answer to your question was obvious from the fact that I'm focusing on the reliability of the Signal and not the Caller, since that's the one that matters more for this discussion. If I thought otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time assessing the Signal's reputation, I'd just be saying "hahaha we've already established the Caller is generally unreliable." --Aquillion (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Part of the issue is that the testimony is a primary source, so we would also need reliable secondary sourcing to establish due weight. –dlthewave ☎ 15:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I would think that testimony given before the US Congress is inherently DUE. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
No, absolutely not. Remember that US Congress can produce massive amounts of testimony; making it all automatically WP:DUE invites editors to extract whatever quotes they want from it to suggest whatever conclusion they decide is appropriate, leading to WP:OR. Large amounts of text and transcripts like that are exactly the sorts of places where we need secondary sourcing to prevent misuse of a primary source. Pulling quotes from a larger body in order to make specific points or present specific arguments isn't an appropriate use of a primary source, since doing so is inherently applying evaluation and analysis to the source (it says that this is the important quote, etc.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
If the testimony is being taken out of context, or used to support OR, then it can certainly be challenged on those grounds (is OR an issue in this case?). This is exactly why we DO ALLOW primary sources... but also say to use them with CAUTION. That said, the potential for OR has nothing to do with the question of DUE/UNDUE WEIGHT.
Something else to consider... Context matters. It is appropriate to give more weight to fringe views in articles ABOUT those views and who hold those views. In the bio article ABOUT Adolph Hitler, it would be appropriate to quote from Mein Kamph in order to explain Hitler’s views... something that would be highly inappropriate in just about any other article. Quoting Mr. Ngo - in the article ABOUT Mr. Ngo - is appropriate, even if that same quote would be inappropriate in some other article. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I half agree. That Dlthewave has removed the July 2020 appearance is a problem. All three instances should be mentioned if nothing else per IAR. However, what is specifically said about each should be based on RSs. A problem I have is that editors seem to want to use strict standards for including sources as if all sources were making extortionary claims. No one here has suggested the Daily Signal article had any factual errors yet it is being excluded as unreliable. This again is one of the big issues with the RSP list and deprecation. It becomes a cudgel to force inclusion/exclusion of sources without using common sense to evaluate the specific claims in question.Springee (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
No one here has suggested the Daily Signal article had any factual errors yet it is being excluded as unreliable ... That's spectacularly not the point. Newsmax could post a heartfelt piece of investigative journalism regarding why 2+2=4, but it will be rejected for use anywhere in this project because of the past fraudulent antics of Newsmax itself. When a source is bad, it's bad. Not bad, but. Zaathras (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No. The Daily Caller, which is what we'd actually be linking here, is a deprecated source. My answer to "Should we source X to a deprecated source?" is always going to be "no". It doesn't matter if they're repeating what some other organization has said. It doesn't matter if it's a minor point. Really no caveats matter. If we've deprecated a source, that means we don't just think that they're unreliable but that they are liars, or have such egregiously poor editorial standards they might as well be. That is actively contrary to the point of sourcing facts, and means that even merely passing thru a deprecated source renders information useless. Loki (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable, but Undue. If a source has been deprecated but has WP:USEBYOTHERS, that suggests we were wrong in our deprecation. Regardless thought we are meant to be an encyclopedia and not a platform to advertise someone's political views, even if they were presented to Congress. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I would agree if this were some other article... but in a biographical article, surely the subject’s stated views are encyclopedic. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


Politics.co.uk

I have been redirected here from another page, so I have copied and pasted my question from that page onto here:

Simple question: is politics.co.uk a reliable source for DOB of members of the British Parliament? I noticed quite a lot of them have this source only as the information available. Most of them are very short, brief paragraphs and usually quote Wikipedia articles verbatim and as far as I’m concerned offer little credibility. Could I have some advice on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:b416:3000:83f:be8:1cfb:39be (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

How do we know it isn’t reliable? I spent ages adding the dates of birth for new MPs the other day, which appeared to have been removed en masse, and I cited Politics.co.uk as a reference. It seems to be a reputable website which has been around for 15 years, and the site’s editor, Ian Dunt, is fairly experienced. A number of well-known organisations use the site, and at least one MP writes for it. I’ll admit that many of their MP profiles do bear a similarity to what’s on Wikipedia, so it’s possible they have plagiarised this site in part, but not all articles are verbatim copies.
I’m a bit fed up of the (petty, IMO) arguments here about "deprecated" or disallowed sources for MPs’ dates of birth on Wikipedia - the latest intake of MPs have not published such information in one mass media, freely available and reliable source. The Times Guide to the House of Commons does have many of the dates, but it’s really expensive. I find it hard to believe no Wikipedia user has a copy, though it likely backs up the data we already have. I did add a few dates from that book which were given to me by a friend who has it.
Wikipedia is inevitably going to be plagiarised by other sites and news sources. But we have no proof that politics.co.uk has done it in this instance. MPs could easily complain about that site and have the data removed if they didn’t like it. How do we know that Wikipedia didn’t plagiarise politics.co.uk, rather than the other way round?
Dates of birth shouldn’t be controversial, and it’s quite important detail, especially for frontline politicians. I’d rather the DOBs here which use the politics.co.uk site as a reference were left alone, at least until they can be replaced with a different source (use the [citation needed] tag if necessary).—TrottieTrue (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I really don’t think anyone needs to 20:44, 26 March 2021‎ 2a02:c7f:b416:3000:318b:2630:294:1df2take lectures from you. You constantly use primary sources to back up content. You really don’t know anything on this subject if you don’t know not to use primary sources from government websites as sources of information. Nice try though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:b416:3000:318b:2630:294:1df2 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The user isn’t registered, it seems. They seem to have become abusive and rude quite quickly too (see comment below, presumably from the same person), so I think the Wikipedia admin need to keep an eye on this. I think they’re referring to the fact I used pages at Companies House as a reference for dates of birth. I wasn’t aware that was considered a primary source which cannot be used.
There’s a good argument for only letting registered users make edits. That, or giving articles on MPs an extra level of protection.—TrottieTrue (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Trolling, abusive language. Zaathras (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Nice way to not answer the question by spouting irrelevant rubbish. Good one.

Last time I checked this was a discussion. We need straight questions and answers. Do you have one? Or are you conceding your source is total rubbish? I don’t think you’ll get away that easily simply by deleting whatever I say and then changing the subject. Nice try once again, though.

(@OP) Based on their aboutpage [38] I wouldn't use this site for WP:BLP stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I don’t see anything suggesting it’s unreliable as a BLP source. In any case, it’s better not to remove any DOBs which reference the site. If necessary, use the [citation needed] or [better source needed] tags, rather than removing the info altogether.—TrottieTrue (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
What do you see suggesting it’s reliable as a BLP source? Also, Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (emphasis in original). I'm not saying there's a current consensus that politics.co.uk is a poor source for DOB:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Nothing concrete indicating reliability, but nothing indicating it isn’t. It’s primarily a news site. Those are generally considered RS - like non-tabloid British newspapers.—TrottieTrue (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Daily Mail article for specific claim

See talk page regarding the use of the Daily Mail for a very specific claim where I couldn't immediately find a better source. Talk:The captain goes down with the ship#Daily Mail. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Both of these sources are superior:
— Newslinger talk 16:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The Guardian repeats the same claim, also mentioning he was the last to leave the plane [39] -- Calidum 16:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ashill: The question whether the Daily Mail can be used under specific circumstances has been discussed repeatedly and at length and that is how we arrived at WP:DAILYMAIL. Check the archives. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on genealogy sources re: notability

There is a discussion here on the WP:Notability (people) Talk page regarding use of genealogy indices that may be of interest. JoelleJay (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Laming

Are a mans claims about his achievements and qualifications in a radio interview and in a speech to parliament reliable sources for his BLP? Discussion at Talk:Andrew_Laming#Autobiography?. 175.38.215.178 (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, WP:ABOUTSELF is the test there, I think.Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Selfstudier. That's the test. 175.38.215.178 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Is "World Israel New" a reliable source for a BLP

Rudy Rochman (pretty much of a hagiography and mainly self-sourced) uses it as a source[40] - I'm also wondering about "Hakol", the Jewish newspaper of Lehigh Pennsylvania.[41] Note this is an ARBPIA article. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, There is nothing controversial about claims being made so the only question if its WP:DUE Shrike (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • At a glance, it doesn't look like a great source to me (it seems very obviously biased and opinionated if nothing else), but I didn't look too closely because what Shrike said is correct - citing someone's publications, even from a normally non-WP:RS, to outline unexceptional positions they have taken, in a carefully neutral tone that doesn't try to advocate those positions, is usually considered a valid use of WP:ABOUTSELF. The statement He is also a critic of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS) clearly falls under that - it's hard to see how that could be self-serving, it's unexceptional, and it says nothing about third parties, so it's fine under WP:ABOUTSELF and the reliability of the source doesn't matter. That's the kind of way an opinion-piece ought to be used - it makes no effort to convince the reader, it just says "the article subject believes this" in a neutral summary-style tone, in an article where the subject's views are obviously relevant. If you're worried the article feels like a hagiography, I would focus more on the first two paragraphs of the views section, which looks to rely a bit too heavily on YouTube videos by the article subject - compare the relatively brief neutral WP:ABOUTSELF "he takes this position on an obviously relevant issue" in the sentence you're focused on to the two sprawling paragraphs that don't just present his beliefs but his extensive arguments for them, cited solely to his own YouTube videos. Overall those two paragraphs probably brings the article over the line in terms of violating the article is not based primarily on such sources restriction of ABOUTSELF, especially considering that refs 1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16, and 18 are all him talking about himself and his views to one extent or another. But I would leave in the bit you focused on, since it's brief, obviously-relevant, unexceptional, and plainly neutral in tone. --Aquillion (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Shrike and Aquillion: thanks for the good advice. Doug Weller talk 12:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

lostworlds.org

I've tried searching the archives for this site, lostworlds, but nothing popped up. Like ancientorigins dot net, they seem to be a mix of some mainstream archaeology, spiced up with WP:FRINGE pseudoarcheology of the "Mayas colonized the US southeast" variety. Most of the articles seem to be written by Gary Daniels, "a media producer with a background in television production and interactive design", and do not cite cite any academic journals, books, writings, etc. for the articles. I do not consider them a RS. Does any one else have any opinions on the matter? Heiro 20:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

For some context, other work by Gary Daniels "MAYAN CALENDAR PROPHECIES | PART 3: CYCLE OF COSMIC CATASTROPHES". Heiro 22:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
And filming scenes for the notoriously WP:FRINGE pseudoarchaeological tv series "America Unearthed]". Heiro 22:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Is there any dispute about this? The obvious answer is if it includes fringe content, then probably not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I personally don't think there is any doubt of their unreliability, but see Talk:Crystal River Archaeological State Park#I’ve got evidence that the ancient Mayans built Crystal River. A new user wants to cite the website for some fringe content, I'm not sure they are going to take only my word for it. I just wanted other input, and to generate a consensus view on the matter since there does not seem to be one in the RSN archives for this site. We should not be citing them. Heiro 22:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Just got my router replaced after it failed Saturday night. Clearly not reliable. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The Greenman Review (allegedly?) by Jafari Willis & Dr. Maksim Kask

Could somebody look over The Greenman Review for reliability? It looks right and wholesome, but looks can be deceiving, and neither of the principal contributors have articles here either, worrying me somewhat. Before I cite one of their earlier pages, can I get an okay? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the write-for-us page[42] the "about" section contains the "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec at dolor ac lacus maximus suscipit in non nisl." that our article Lorem ipsum points out is a placeholder. That alone disqualifies it in my opinion. A number of its articles are by the anonymous "thegreenmanreview_admin", again suggesting it fails as an rs. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
That's exactly the kind of eyeballing that I was hoping to solicit. Thanks so much, Doug Weller! I hadn't noticed those, and I concur wholly. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: metal-experience.com

The result is Option 3 ("Generally unreliable for factual reporting"). Mz7 (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of metal-experience.com?

--TheSandDoctor Talk 16:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey (metal-experience.com)

  1. Option 3 - As noted below, I retain my prior stance that it is not a reliable source. I didn't see any evidence that professional, credentialed writers or editors produce content there. I'm happy to re-evaluate if someone finds something new though. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  2. Option 3: I wouldn't go as far as to say that the content is fabricated, but there's no evidence that it's anything more than one person asking for anybody to contribute reviews to the website, no editorial control or professional writing and it's clearly been dormant since 2014. Richard3120 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  3. Option 3 It's clear that this site lacks professional editorial oversight. It doesn't intentionally make things up, but it doesn't make sure someone else isn't doing that. (Summoned by bot) --I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me if replying off my talk page. Thank you. 19:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  4. Option 3 There is a lack of professionalism in there articles.Sea Ane (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  5. Option 3 - There are no clear editorial controls, and with the way the content is written I don't think this is anything near what we'd consider reliable. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  6. Option 3 because it is not a great source.Nyx86 (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  7. Option 3 really more of a fanblog than anything else, doesn't appear to have any professional standards of reporting. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  8. Option 3, as per the above views. If there are interviews with bands/artists they can be used for basic biographical information, but not exceptional claims. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (metal-experience.com)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Actu a reliable source?

Actu, also known as Actu.fr, is a french news site. It is currently used in the Lofi Girl (YouTube channel) article and is tagged with the unreliable source template. Is it really an unreliable source? Lazman321 (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Please select an option below:

  • Option 1 - Actu is a reliable source.
  • Option 2 - Actu is a martially reliable source, or should only be used under certain circumstances.
  • Option 3 - Actu is an unreliable source.
  • Option 4 - Actu needs to be deprecated.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_334&oldid=1047248263"