Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

RfC: Adult industry sources

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.

---

Are the following two sources generally reliable for news reporting and WP:RSOPINION statements in their area of expertise (the adult industry)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual-type information on this particular topic
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual-type reporting on this particular topic
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated factual-type information on this particular topic, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail?

AVN (magazine)

• Option 1 As far as I'm aware, here hasn't been any particular controversy in regarding to AVN magazine and its journalism. It is a the prime source for the subject area and so seems one of the most appropriate sources to use. Silverseren^C 21:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, I think: as we quote in our article on the magazine, The New York Times called it "an industry magazine that is to pornographic films what the trade publication Billboard is to records" in 2000. We currently consider its awards significant on bios. It seems of comparable quality to a trade publication in any other subject area. If we reject AVN, I'm not sure what better sources there are on the sex industry. — Bilorv (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Additional consideration in that AVN does publish press releases as is, but does mark them as such. (Compare the labeled articles in this AVN search[1]) Those press releases can not be relied on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 for non-sponsored content and non-press release content as per Morbidthoughts. Otherwise needs an Option 2 disclaimer. I would say this is analogous to the sponsored content produced in many other news venues like The New York Times, The Economist, Wired, and others. [2] We should not trust such content as RS, but for the rest, I think it's probably okay.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 for any content that is not a copy of the press release. Reprints of press releases are only reliable for the press releaser stating something.--Hippeus (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 for any non-sponsored content, which (per Morbidthoughts) can be distinguished from their own content. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 It can be relied on for reliability free from controversy. Sea Ane (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

XBIZ

• Option 1 Being responsible for one of the main award competitions for the adult industry and not seeing any issues reported elsewhere regarding their journalistic side, I see no reason why they aren't a top level source for this specific subject matter. They aren't schlock celebrity news or anything like that. Silverseren^C 21:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, I think: this one I've used in GirlsDoPorn (warning for sexual abuse: you need a really strong stomach to click that link) and found it as reliable as all the internet culture websites (The Daily Beast, Vice) and local coverage (NBC 7 San Diego) that broke the story and the mainstream sources that re-reported it (New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald). The Washington Post asked the president/publisher for a quote in their article. As with AVN, it's a trade publication and if we reject it there's not much we can write about the sex industry. — Bilorv (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - XBIZ publishes press releases as is, but does not mark them as such. They used to. They're somewhat easy to catch since they list no author (like AVN), but I would not rely on XBIZ for anything contentious. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 as per above, I think the issue is that they can produce sponsored content and not give it much definition to separate it. I would say that this means we should not use it for controversial matters, but otherwise GR. The industry is so extremely ad-based, that it makes sense that these considerations are a bigger problem here than elsewhere. Even more than typical journalism outlets which have a higher proportion of donors and subscribers.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, as they do not clearly mark reprinted press releases.--Hippeus (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 for their own content. The GirlsDoPorn GA Bilorv links above extensively uses this (same warning for sexual abuse) source which is a thorough and good piece of news reporting. Their other work also seems to be reliable (ie not fabricated). It's not great that they don't mark reposted press releases clearly, but it can still be identified, and that content should be unreliable (this would be the "additional consideration" I suppose). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 It releases content without properly marking it. Sea Ane (talk) 20:18, 7 July 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.

Rfc: Jacobin (magazine)

Hello all! While editing recent articles in Peruvian politics, especially regarding Pedro Castillo and the 2021 Peruvian general election, Jacobin was encountered on multiple occasions. There are some interesting interviews and articles written by Jacobin, though there has not been a clear consensus on the reliability of the magazine as a source.

Previous discussions with dedicated sections were held, with the oldest being seen here on Archive 302, while in Archive 324 users shared that the reliability of Jacobin was between generally reliable and no consensus/addtional considerations after reviewing discussions from Archive 302.

Since it appears that Jacobin has hundreds of links throughout the project, it is suggested that we determine the level of reliability of the source so it can be present on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page.

Options are as follows:

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated

Thank you for taking the time to take a look at this!--WMrapids (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• So where's the dispute? I see you in reverts with other editors on those articles, but not concerning Jacobin in particular. What is the precise usage you are disputing, for which claims, and which of these usages are observably in dispute? Without this, this is an invalid RFC - David Gerard (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I'm confused now, I thought the idea of an RFC was a generic reliability request. The idea being that there would be at least two prior discussions of the source and with a view to including it in the perennials with the outcome. Have I got this wrong?Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: It has been discussed here a bunch of times: a year ago, with a clear consensus for "generally reliable but attribute"[3] and then seven months ago, with a consensus for "use with caution"[4]. Three substantial discussions would mean we could add it to the RSP list, but I don't see what we might say that wasn't already said in previous discussions, without a specific usage to discuss. (My choice though, if we proceed with this RfC, would be for option 2: mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occassionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory.)
• Option 2 OK, that's clear enough, left wing source, mixes facts with opinion on occasion, so attribute seems best.Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Only reliable for attributed quotations. I would say too much opinion to be trusted for all matters of fact, but clearly reliable for attributed quotes and demonstrating due weight.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Add: This is what we do with most partisan sources, including left-leaning sources with an agenda just like some editors above have pointed out Jacobin has (e.g. WP:FOXNEWS, CounterPunch, Democracy Now!, Jezebel, Media Matters for America). There's nothing particularly troublesome that sets Jacobin apart from these other extremely partisan sources as more unreliable. It just needs attribution to counteract its heavy bias.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3. It consists entirely of opinion pieces and is openly and heavily ideologically slanted. There is no good reason to use such a source - either better sources exist, or it's usually WP:UNDUE. Option 3 allows for occasional use for interviews with highly notable subjects or if an author of an article is a recognized subject-matter expert. Ending up with option 2 would result in editors arguing it can be used as a source for things like economics, contentious labels for BLPs, and so on, that are clearly not appropriate. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. It's really politically slanted and it's not a straight news source. I wouldn't trust them. Remember, we're talking about using them as the sole source for a fact. If Jacobin is your sole source for anything but the most ideology-free facts, no. Even for things like, I don't know, the year that a town was established or what have you... if Jacobin is your only source for a fact, it'd be a pretty obscure fact and maybe just skip it. I don't get a sense of how rigorous their independent fact-checking operation, and since "getting facts absolutely correct" is not their primary business raison d'etre, I'd be suspicious of even of anodyne facts such as the population of Labrador or whatever, if they are the only source, til I know more. Individual exceptions may be hashed out in individual articles. Herostratus (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 While I personally think it is generally reliable, the strong political slant of the magazine makes it best to use with attribution and perhaps not for contentious claims. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. They are a textbook example of a usable WP:BIASED source that is still reliable (with the attendant warnings of why you have to be cautious when using any heavily WP:BIASED source, of course, but if that alone disqualified a source then we wouldn't have BIASED.) Here is CJR's in-depth write-up of them, which compares it as follows: And yet as important as these articles were for Jacobin’s reputation, the magazine more closely resembled Wenner’s Rolling Stone, or Harold Hayes’s Esquire, or Tina Brown’s Vanity Fair than it did Dissent or the New Left Review in at least one respect: its whole was greater than the sum of its parts. Implicit comparisons to similar magazines earlier in the piece include The Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker, Time, and Playboy. Note that every one of the sources it's compared to there are a WP:RS. It is a plainly BIASED source, yes, and requires a warning to that effect; sometimes it has to be used with caution to avoid giving undue weight to its point of view. But anyone arguing it is unreliable is going to need to explain how they can support leaving, for instance, Reason at green in WP:RSP (another source that the CJR piece directly contrasts it with.) Or PinkNews, or The Intercept, or The New Republic, or one of numerous other comparable sources we consider reliable - or, for that matter, The New Yorker or The Atlantic, which are written in a similar style and are particular points of comparison above. Jacobin's less mainstream perspective is something that has to be considered when deciding where it is WP:DUE, but it isn't a matter of reliability. In short, if a source has a reasonable reputation, then simply being biased isn't enough to render it unreliable; you have to demonstrate inaccuracy resulting from that bias. --Aquillion (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 Aquillion covers the policies well and there's nothing to disagree with or expand upon. Gamaliel (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 (possibly Option 3). Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon (RSP entry), Townhall (RSP entry)). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with WP:WEIGHT. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement [5]. So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. James Wolcott identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left [6]. It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela [7], the USSR/Communism [8][9], and anti-semitism [10], [11]. I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet (RSP entry) [12][13][14], Daily Kos (RSP entry) [15], Raw Story (RSP entry) [16], The Canary (RSP entry) [17], and the Electronic Intifada (RSP entry) [18].Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Jacobin is fringey on some of these issues, but we need to b e careful about unreliable versus opinionated. The Nieman Lab piece just says it has to use a range of methods to keep its revenue above its costs ("The majority of [contributors] are graduate students or young professors.") not that it is unreliable. Wolcott is criticising their politics, not claiming they publish fake news (he attacks the Intercept for the same reasons). The Intelligencer says it has bad opinions on communism and Venezeula, but doesn't comment on accuracy. Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic says socialism is bad therefore democratic socialist magazines are bad, but doesn't comment on reliability. The (highly unreliable) WSWS dislikes its politics, but, well, so what? Arnold and Taylor provide lots of good reasons why Jacobin's opinions are unpleasant, but again doesn't talk about reliability. Finally literally all the ADL says is that it published an opinion piece saying “Israel Doesn’t Have a “Right to Exist”. The fact that these commentators take the time to polemicise against The Jacobin might suggest that sometimes its opinions are noteworthy, but it tells us nothing about whether it is reliable for facts. So I think these arguments keep us in option 2 territory. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2 I agree broadly with @Aquillion:'s thoughts and think a disclaimer in the vein of The Intercept(RSP entry) would be ideal. That being said, Jacobin is not, strictly speaking, an actual news source and a part of me is uncomfortable slapping the WP:GREL label on it, even with a disclaimer. I mostly think 1 is the way to go, but I understand and accept 2. BSMRD (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Aquillion. Reliable doesn't mean free of bias; if it did we would have no reliable sources. The CJR article should really be the end of this dispute (if there was one?) — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. I don't like Jacobin, but I've never heard them to be liars or fabricators. Use with attribution, and I wouldn't use them as sole evidence of notability - it is after all primarily a magazine of opinion - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: Jacobin's clasification as unreliable would not preclude it from being used with attribution; what's important is to determine how reliable it is to be used for facts or with an editorial voice. Not only is Jacobin's bias concerning, but also its reporting. Besides the links provided by Dr. Swag Lord, to put an example, I should mention an open letter signed by around 200 Ecuadorians (Open Letter to Editors of Jacobin and Monthly Review), including prominent left-wing academics and activists, that criticized Jacobin and Monthly Review, which republished an article by The Grayzone, for attacking Yaku Pérez, an ecosocialist and indigenous candidate. In the case of the former, the signatories state that Jacobin overlooked Ecuador's indigenous history and ignores Yaku's "critiques of extractivist statism and monolithic personalism". This is more concerning knowing that Jacobin has quoted Alternet ([19]) and The Grayzone ([20]) in the past, sources that have been deemed as unreliable and that should be deprecated, respectively, and that Jacobin editors Hamzah Raza and Denis Rogatyuk have also contributed for the latter. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The open letter is something we should take seriously as it was signed by the most distinguished scholars of Latin America. But I still think it suggests we should treat Jacobin on a case by case basis. We would never want to use it for a topic such as the Ecuadorian election, Pete Buttigieg's past or Labour antisemitism, on which there are acres of other reliable sources and it would be deeply undue to quote the Jacobin. And we would want to avoid a contributor like Denis Rogatyuk whose bylines are mostly in very low quality sources such as Telesur and Grayzone. But where we might want to use it is on a topic that is not covered by so many reliable sources such as radical history,[21][22] other under-represented histories,[23][24] trade union disputes[25] or possibly socialist theory. These are topics where the contributors are often academic researchers. In addition, it occassionally publishes notable writers such as Enzo Traverso,[26] Dawn Foster,[27] or Doug Henwood.[28] If we go with option 3, we will exclude noteworthy material on topics that are likely under-represented in mainstream sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 Concure, Aquillion covers the policies well and there's nothing to disagree with or expand upon. Ip says (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1/2. WP:BIASED but no evidence of unreliability. Use with caution especially toward WP:DUE, but any factual reporting from them ought to be accurate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 My cursory Google News search for phrases like "according to Jacobin" and "Jacobin reported" finds virtually no references in straight news stories in outlets we generally consider to be RS. As with all things, we should judge by what RS say; many !votes here are "seems reliable" or "I can't recall hearing about an issue with them". We, as Wikipedians, are not qualified to engage in the kind of content analysis needed to properly vet any publication, nor has anyone here shown evidence of having committed the time to do so on this publication. The scientific consensus for content analysis of online media generally suggests two constructed weeks of content be reviewed for every six months evaluated. In the absence of any editor doing that, we should not be !voting on reliability based on our gut instinct and must defer entirely to whether or not RS consider it reliable. In this case, there is no evidence they do (though, also no clear evidence they don't). Chetsford (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 possibly 3. Dr.Swag Lord's evidence is compelling. I would also point to Adfontes Media bias chart [[29]]. Compare Jacobin to Breitbart. They have nearly identical reliability (29.93 vs 29.82 respectively) but Breitbart is actually considered less biased (-23.3 vs 17.49). This actually lands Breitbart in the second tier sources bracket vs third tier for Jacobin. Adfontes is not the end all be all but it is reasonably respected around here. Springee (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

AdFontes says that the Weather Channel, Forbes and the BBC are biased left and the Daily Mail is no more biased right than them, so I think it's stronger on rating reliability than it is on bias, as its idea of the middle is pretty right-wing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• There is still a lack of examples of any factual inaccuracies in its coverage. This was pointed out in the last two discussions as well. To the contrary, on searching for coverage of Jacobin in reliable source, it has been cited by Snopes for its fact checks and there are affirmatory reviews in The New York Times and Vox alongside the in-depth piece in the Columbia Journalism Review which has already been brought up above. On the basis of this, I would recommend Option 1 with a disclaimer that it is a partisan magazine whose opinions should be attributed and coverage checked for due weight; à la Reason (RSP entry). If it covers something that is not covered by any other reliable source, it is likely not due but that is not a objection against its reliability. I'm not too concerned with the criticism it has received which more so question its ideological standpoint rather than its journalistic integrity. The open letter published in New Politics stands out as a positive to me, which criticises it for negative coverage of a socialist candidate. If anything it goes to show that the magazine is not susceptible to hyperpartisan impulses. It's use of sources also appears largely responsible, where in case of more partisan sources it tends more towards presenting a viewpoint with attribution rather than as a citation, i.e "This Raw Story piece reminded me of an article in the New York Times Magazine a few weeks ago." or "As the Washington Post notes, ... Or as Daily Kos’s Stephen Wolf put it, they were ...", etc. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry: while I understand most of your arguments, I'm not sure if I follow the rationale about the content of the open letter. In this case, Jacobin's criticism towards Yaku Pérez, the socialist candidate, appears to be mostly due to its criticism to Rafael Correa, left-wing head of state and part of Latin America's pink tide. The author even goes as far as to say "Pérez’s political record suggests he is a Trojan horse for the left’s most bitter enemies". If this suggests that the candidate would actually help the political right-wing, it would be a proof of the contrary, that Jacobin is susceptible to hyperpartisan impulses. I tried to bring the question, among other things, on how omission by the outlet can affects its reliability, not only for being strong worded. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I did not look too closely at the context. My specific point regarding hyper-partisanship doesn't stand anymore considering it but nor does it affirm it the other way around. Them taking a position in an internecine competition doesn't tell us anything about their reliability. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 With 2 as my second choice. None of the purported evidence of their unreliability presented here makes a compelling case, and I've seen them write stories on par with other reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 and attribute (in most cases). No specific case has been provided for unreliability. The main contentions are 1) that it has a pronounced bias, 2) that it cites sources we deem unreliable, and 3) based on some Ecuador election things. For 1) bias affects reliability only insofar as it actually affects reliability. For 2) the sourcing requirements we use on Wikipedia are quite specific to this community, and they really do not apply to the sources we use. Assuming Jacobin editorial oversight restricts citation to specific dodgy articles within a broader publication, there is not issue with them citing those broader sources. And 3) I confess I haven't dug too deep into this, but a brief glance at the article and reflection on the comments here seem to show that this is a left-wing political kerfuffle, rather than an issue of reliable sourcing.

Now for a positive case for reliability, based mostly on a sampling of uses from various sources:

1. The outlet has a robust editorial board with 10+ full-time editors, 10+ contributing editors, and a separate editorial board.
2. Reliable news outlets rely on Jacobin for quotes, implying that they are reliable at least as far as being trustworthy for not making things up.
3. Peer-reviewed academic works cite Jacobin for statements of fact about topics including protest movements, international economics, and the history of various political movements.
4. Sources on the American right cite Jacobin for statements of fact, implying at least limited acceptance across the aisle (though, to be fair, usually used to make ironic points--but taking Jacobin's statements as true, if politically inflected). Right-wing publications also use Jacobin to represent the perspective of the left.

UBO examples

Palgrave Macmillan peer-reviewed academic works: In Body/Sex/Work: Intimate, Embodied and Sexualized Labour. Cited this without in-text attribution to discuss how feminism and sex work interact Bristol University Press: Cited inline to discuss the effect of COVID-19 on actions of international financial institutions. Journal of International Affairs (just a grad student journal, but article by editorial board)): Cited inline to describe racial diversity in George Floyd protests. Wits University Press: Cited to describe the effects of unemployment on workers, specifically in the context of African development patterns AK Press (radical left publisher): Cited this piece with in-text attribution in Taking Sides to discuss details of protester behaviours during the US Ferguson protests PM Press (offshoot of AK press): Footnote in RE:imagining change suggests a Jacobin article analyzing Murray Bookchin in a modern context Referenced in Beyond Crisis to describe the effects of austerity policy Medical Journal of Australia: [30] On pharmaceutical industry vaccine development International Studies Perspectives peer-reviewed by Oxford University Press listed among notable journals here: Cited to describe student-led protest movements in Brazil Springer's Review of Keynesian Economics: What's wrong with Modern Money Theory: macro and political economic restraints on deficit-financed fiscal policy  :"The fifth panel in Figure 2 concerns MMT's disingenuity about the role and necessity of taxes. That disingenuity has been emphasized by Marxists and left-wing economists" Sage's Labor Studies Journal (peer-reviewed since 1988): Cited several times in discussion of historical militancy in labor unions Sage's Work, Employment & Society (peer-reviewed since 1984): more labor history, about rank-and-file organizing. Included as an example of intellectual argument/analysis on organizing history and strategy Sage's Urban Affairs Review (peer-reviewed urban studies since 1965): Cited in article on patterns of policing, supporting a statement about how police stops have been related to increased dependence of police budgets on fees. NYT: [31] Used as blurb for a recommended book -> weighty for book reviews. [32] An article was analyzed in NYT's "Opinionator". The article in question was first published in Jacobin and later syndicated in Slate, described by Gordon Marino as "a much discussed article" -> Some specific articles are notable in themselves, lending support for possible RSOPINION status. Slate: [33] Designated as 'supplementary reading' for Slate's podcast on fascism to describe fascist movements in the United States. -> reliable for historical statements on fascism Vox: [34]: Cited, linked, and attributed for statements about housing density and city development [35] Linked to represent the political perspectives of the American left Vice: [36]: Brought up a participant in a back-and-forth over political matters [37]: Linked to show left critique of media [38]: Linked for media criticism of a specific film (The Hunger Games) New Yorker: [39]: Providing analysis of Bernie Sanders's political orientation Politico: [40]: Fully quoted and attributed to explain a possible pattern of USA nonvoter behaviours [41]: Quoting interview [42]: Quoting interview The Baffler: [43]: Cited and attributed to describe trends in consumer materialism/anti-materialism [44]: Used as an example of left attitudes on central planning [45]: Says that Jacobin is better for extended coverage of contemporary labor issues than most media Fox (note: no consensus on politics/science): The article basically just summarized a Jacobin article to describe the perspective of the left on Kamala Harris. Cites interview The Federalist: Referenced 2x3x and quoted for statements on single-payer healthcare. (Note: This usage seems like a stretch on The Federalist's part.) Quotes an interview. The Bulwark: Quoted to explain what "abolish the police" means.

It should be recognized that this collection cannot give a full picture of use, but it does give illustrative examples of how Jacobin is used in context. These examples demonstrate both the wide usage of Jacobin in news RS and peer-reviewed literature.

I have tried my best for the journals to identify specifically peer-reviewed works from reasonably recognized journals, though I may have missed the mark since I am not a subject-matter expert.

Based on the lack of opposing argument, the positive arguments suggested above, and my presentation of the combination of robust Jacobin editorial support and robust use in the literature, I suggest that the source can be treated as generally reliable. I am open to specific examples showing otherwise, but these have not been shown so far (beyond political disputes and biased titles).

Jlevi (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 It is a respected magazine with authors who are published in major reliable sources. Bear in mind that opinion and analysis articles are not reliable sources wherever they are published unless written by experts and facts and opinions reported in the magazine usually fail weight unless they are published in many sources. As a minor publication with little news coverage, I would not expect it to be widely used as a source. But there are cases where it could be useful. TFD (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: Though RfCs are somewhat new to me (not sure if RfC openers can do this), the observations by multiple users appear to support Jacobin as a generally reliable source. Jlevi has noted the editorial prowess of the magazine as well as its acceptance across the political spectrum and academia. However, I will expand on recognizing some concerns.

It seems these are the main concerns:

• Bias: Users often hear the "every source is biased" phrase and this obviously applies to Jacobin as well. There are also multiple generally reliable sources regarded as having some bias, including Al Jazeera, the Anti-Defamation League, The Australian, Bellingcat, The Guardian, The Intercept and The Nation. This bias should not discount Jacobin's value as a reliable source regarding left-wing and socialist viewpoints. This bias can be noted in its entry just the same as the previously mentioned sources.
• Use of unreliable sources: As NoonIcarus has mentioned, some articles mention Alternet, Grayzone and possibly other dubious sources. Though one can say that a broken clock is right twice a day, the use of these two sources in particular seems to be too common among left wing publications from what I have seen in my brief research, unfortunately. However, Fox News – which has previously been deemed generally reliable – has used Breitbart reporting on occasion as well, even describing Breitbart as "one of the world’s top news publishers". There is also the issue with contributors and opinion pieces, though I will elaborate on this next. As with other generally reliable sources, we can include a comment to make sure content is properly attributed.
• Contributors/Opinon: As with any other publication or source, there are going to be contributors and opinion pieces. These are usually not treated as statements of fact according to WP:RSEDITORIAL. This is one of Jacobin's shortcomings as it can be difficult to decipher whether an article is from a contributor or staff. For example, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d shared an article by New York that reviews some opinion articles regarding Venezuela, such as one from George Ciccariello-Maher, though these are just that; opinion articles. Many of these articles were not written by Jacobin staff. If included in WP:RSP, it would be important to note that users should observe what is opinion, similar to the WP:RSP entry of The New York Times.

In conclusion, Jacobin appears to be a biased, though generally reliable source. Ways to identify their opinion articles may not be so apparent, though their work is respected across the political spectrum and overseen by a large editorial board as noted by Jlevi. If added to the WP:RSP list, I recommend an entry similar to The Nation, stating something such as "There is consensus that Jacobin is generally reliable. The magazine identifies as socialist on its website. Most editors consider Jacobin a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. Ensure that opinion pieces are observed and utilized appropriately".--WMrapids (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2, although I will note that almost all of what they publish is opinion so most of it isn’t of much use to us unless the opinion holder is notable or useful for something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 I have not come across any claims of their unreliability or publication of false/fabricated information. They do however have a notable left-leaning political stance and don't seem to clearly distinguish between news reporting and opinion pieces. I think attribution may sometimes be necessary when it comes to some of their more polemical articles, but otherwise I'd consider them to be generally reliable. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1/2. We must bear in mind this is a partisan source, definitely. Unfortunately a lot of what they publish is less of investigative journalism and more opinions/editorials, so we should tread here carefully to distinguish fact and opinion, which is also a feature of quite a lot of news outlets of a similar level of bias. That said, the factual accuracy has not been credibly asserted to be low enough not to merit a generally reliable descriptor; the WP:USEBYOTHERS argument by Jlevi is convincing for me (at least the sources actually refer to Jacobin), and this magazine has quite a lot of interesting insights into the left (such as the recent article about NDP govt in British Columbia in 1970s), if opinionated. Probably The Nation is a better alternative, but Jacobin doesn't seem bad at the end of the day. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 Although Jacobin's articles skew heavily toward opinion/analysis, they're supported by facts that have been cited by top-tier sources. Caveats regarding weight and attribution are unnecessary; like any reliable source, we use statements of opinion with attribution and statements of fact without. –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1, with the summary containing the qualification provided by WMrapids. I'm fully convinced by the points by Aquillion (reliable WP:BIASED), Jlevi (strong reputation as demonstrated by UBO) and WMrapids (particularly regarding the applicability of WP:RSEDITORIAL); I'm not seen any evidence compelling evidence put forward to suggest unreliability/factual inaccuracy. As a second, lesser preference, option 2 on the basis that BIASED says opinionated sources are reliable in specific context, and per points above by Dr.Swag Lord, TFD & Horse Eye's Back made about its predominantly opinion-based output making its use situational (i.e. additional considerations), although I think this is would be inconsistent with the approach we've taken with other biased but usable sources of both left and right-wing dispositions, particularly the Intercept & Fox News, again a point best made by WMrapids but also others. Jr8825 • Talk 13:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2. As far as I can tell, Jacobin publishes mostly op-eds. The reliability of the op-eds should be judged on the basis of the author's expertise and the claims put forth in the op-ed. If claims are extraordinary and made by an author who is not an expert on the subject, then the source should not be considered sufficient to include the content. To say the Jacobin is Option 1 is like saying the NY Times editorial pages are generally reliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 and 2. As long as the story is factual and can be validated then Jaconin can be used as a reliable source. It shouldn't just be discredited automatically because it has bias. Every media has bias including mainstream media. A good example is the one article from Jacobin that talks about the media blackout on Assange. When a major witness recuited by the US had admitted that he had lied about Assange, the mainstream media has largely ignored it. There is no reason for the mainstream media to shun such a bombshell story and also the Jacobin story indeed checks out. https://www.democracynow.org/2021/6/28/julian_assange_extradition_case. So it seems like they are an ivaluable source as they are willing to point out real info that is largely ignored by the mainstream media outlets and as long as their articles are strongly backed by facts from top tier sources, then they have done wrong to deserve the label of unrealible source IMONvtuil (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

References

• Bad RfC. Somewhere in all this there might be some serious discussion about a dispute where Jacobin is used or misused in a specific Wikipedia article, if so bring it up separately. Pseudo-voting on this page won't overturn or confirm WP:NOTCENSORED, Jacobin is an opinion magazine. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Peter Gulutzan: The entire RfC is based on usage in recently edited articles (which you can see in the initial inquiry). This should be sufficient enough for an RfC as the intention was determining whether the source, Jacobin, was reliable and appropriate to be included in the project.--WMrapids (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Basing an entire RfC on "usage", as if being used justifies an RfC, increases the objectionability. I did look at the "initial inquiry" and searched the talk pages of the named articles, Pedro Castillo and Peruvian General Election, for evidence of a dispute about "Jacobin". I didn't find it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 because it is generally reliable per the following media bias fact checkers who rate Jacobin as having a left bias, but high factual reliability:

-Media Bias Chart (1)

-Media Bias Chart (2)

-Media Bias Fact Check

-Page University

––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 01:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 - I wouldn't use it for any claims of fact, but there are some circumstances where it can be used to sources opinions with attribution. Volunteer Marek 03:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Bad RFC - We should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, which is essentially what the nom is trying to do here. We risk rating the source as reliable (or not) when the issue is unimportant because "sure, why not?" and thus giving the impression that a source (which in this case is an opinions mag) is reliable in all contexts. The perennial sources list is for perennial sources, meaning sources that are discussed perennially, not just once with no actual contentious matter discussed. It is not sufficient that the source be used X number of times (and less than a thousand cites is not in any sense common usage on Wiki - we have deprecated sources that are still used more times than that). FOARP (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 It sometimes mix factual news with opinion, it can be used with attribution. Sea Ane (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Links to World Gazetteer don't work

Moved to WP:URLREQ

RfC: reliability of Crunchbase News versus Crunchbase's user generated information

Should Crunchbase News be treated differently than Crunchbase on the reliable sources noticeboard? Here's a link to an earlier discussion I tried to start without making it an RfC, and it had a limited response: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#Crunchbase News And here's a link to the page describing the difference between Crunchbase and Crunchbase News, trying to show journalistic independence. [[46]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, it selects journalists and signs up to an ethical policy. It's clearly not user-generated content, although that doesn't necessarily mean it's reliable. It doesn't appear to advertise a complaints process or policy. On reliability, how does Crunchbase News compare to sources like Techcrunch? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You can click on news.crunchbase.com   to see all the different Crunchbase News articles that are used as sources on Wikipedia, to decide whether you think they are reliable or not. In my experience, the news reporting, both with Crunchbase News and TechCrunch, is reliable, and no more promotional than other reliable sources. They combine company announcements with interviews and independent reporting. The reason this is someone important is because another editor is mass removing all Crunchbase sources, based on a determination that the main Crunchbase is unreliable, and has included at least one Crunchbase News article as well. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It may be no more promotional than many other sources we use, but that's not saying much. If it's a RS, then that only applies to the independent reporting-. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why each source must be considered on a case by case basis, in the context that it's used. But we certainly don't want blanket wholesale removal of Crunchbase News sources, based on an unrelated determination that user generated Crunchbase is unreliable. And IMHO, even though it's a different conversation, Crunchbase is no more or less reliable than IMDB. Much is user generated, but the underlying info can be easily checked with independent sources. For example, Crunchbase reports on total funding by adding up the different rounds. If three reliable sources say that series A, B and C were $10M, $20M and $70M in order, and then Crunchbase says total funding to date is $100M, it's easier to source the aggregate total using Crunchbase than hunting down the three different announcements in third party press. That should be considered reliable, yet that's the type of info that is being wholesale removed. But first things first - back to Crunchbase News. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know why Crunchbase is deprecated, since I agree it's equivalent to IMDb. Deprecation is a bit arbitrary, though. Techcrunch is okay but it can be a bit promotional. At minimum I wouldn't use Techcrunch to source controversial information, or to source things that sound too hyped up or futuristic, and am unsure if they ever do straight PR. Sourcing a fundraising amount or owners of a company? Seems fine. Sourcing information in Artificial intelligence, or some related exceptional claim about a company? Ehh... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The IMDB isn't an independent source, so if Crunchbase is like that, it's a good thing it's not accepted as a source. Crunchbase News seems to be run differently from Crunchbase, though, so whether it's an independent source depends on who writes the news, whether they fact-check the information, whether the content is sponsored by the companies being written about, etc. A proper news source should have a clear editorial policy. If the company obscures this kind of information, there may be reason for concern.—Anne Delong (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Crunchbase News claims an editorial policy, but almost the entire content is press release churnalism - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Here’s their editorial policy. [[47]] Seems pretty straightforward to me. Even Forbes uses their coverage in their articles. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

TechCrunch isn't a clear RS - it's yellow-rated, because it's boosterism that fails WP:ORGIND per previous discussions, linked from WP:RSP#TechCrunch. There's no reason to presume Crunchbase News should be treated as an in the clear NEWSORG, given its parent fails to clear the bar.

There's no discussion yet of the actual usages of Crunchbase News on Wikipedia. We have 82 usages of Crunchbase News. The content used is mostly barely-churned press releases (e.g., [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]) with a bit of the sort of "analysis" that's indistinguishable from boosterism (e.g., [53]). You'd have to be really stretching to consider this in any way comparable to independent third-party journalism on the companies.

Even if we declare that the "news" site isn't technically deprecated, it's the sort of stuff that's at best a slightly worse version of the primary sources it's based on. Unusable for notability - it's precisely the sort of promotional boosterism that leads to funding rounds having been considered not usable for notability or WP:CORPDEPTH - and barely usable for facts.

I should note also: going through the Crunchbase backlog, a disproportionate number of these articles are just corporate spam, or barely above that. I keep hitting things warranting PRODs and speedies, orphans created by an SPA and not substantively edited in the several years since their creation, undisclosed paid editing, etc. I keep having to apply {{advert}} and/or {{puffery}} tags. Even in non-spam articles, Crunchbase or Crunchbase News adds information primarily of interest to the company's boardroom.

As far as Wikipedia goes, Crunchbase is in practice a trashy source largely used for puffery, and looking for Crunchbase links is a good way to track down promotional editing - David Gerard (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Thanks for sharing your perspective. I also spend a lot of time editing company articles, and I think you can find paid editing by tracking any publication. I'll take another shot at clarifying the difference between Crunchbase and Crunchbase News. The former is a highly visible crowdsourced data repository that summarizes company information in one place, and the info can be easily checked and corrected. Like Bloomberg, they make their money selling access to the info, but thanks to crowdsourcing and open access to the data, Crunchbase is more up to date. For my VC friends, Crunchbase is their go-to source for funding info. Crunchbase info is collected like Wikipedia, except at Wikipedia, it's considered more reliable because we show our sources. Crunchbase News is an independent news organization that, like any other media outlet, might use a press release as the starting point of any story, but they also add independent reporting and info they get from interviews. I'm curious if you have any examples of any of the info you removed from articles that was sourced using either Crunchbase or Crunchbase News being incorrect, and not simply because the info changed since it was originally added to our articles? Just as an example, the first item you linked, which sourced Greenlight Financial's $215 Series C, was actually used as a source by Forbes in its followup coverage, confirming the info you removed.[[54]] If it's good enough for Forbes, it should be good enough for us, right? Nonetheless, I'd be OK with adding a separate line to the reliable sources noticeboard for Crunchbase News and assigning it the same yellow rating as Techcrunch. That way, its reporting can be considered on a case by case basis and not blanket removed. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd say Wikipedia has nothing to be gained by adding Crunchbase News, except more corporate spam. And TechCrunch should be moved to "generally unreliable" in the manner of a tabloid that hasn't been caught actually fabricating information, but whose content is basically trash. Because it, and Crunchbase News, are basically trash. You were seriously claiming these could be placed with reliable NEWSORGs, and that's just incorrect. They are press-release churnalism that should be removed from Wikipedia, and absolutely not encouraged - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you address my points? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Your proposals don't propose anything that would add to independent third-party RS coverage in Wikipedia. I don't think either belongs as a source in Wikipedia except in unusual circumstances, for the reasons I stated. Do you understand why churnalism is only a slight laundering of straight-up press releases, and is a net negative to Wikipedia that should not be enabled or encouraged? - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The source you surprisingly removed again from Crunchbase News in spite of this discussion being ongoing was used to show where the subject’s company was located, and how many people it had. [[55]] Are you implying that that information is incorrect? And indeed, would you please show me the inaccuracies in any of the sources you are mass removing right now, so we can see the harm you are claiming? I already showed above how one source you don’t like WP:IDONTLIKEIT was used by Forbes, so please address that. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it editorially with due consideration as churnalism - that is, a press release reprint being presented to readers as a journalistic source of quality, which it isn't. Do you understand why churnalism is only a slight laundering of straight-up press releases, and is a net negative to Wikipedia that should not be enabled or encouraged? - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with using it for such noncontroversial information. Benjamin (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Related RFC: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#rfc_EA1AAEC - David Gerard (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC - Moneylife

I’ve been researching Indian institutions in the past couple of weeks for a personal project. I noticed that Moneylife has been used as a reference on Indian-related pages and came here to check its credibility. I first spotted it on the National Stock Exchange of India. After that, I found it on a few other pages, as seen below.

University of Mumbai List of chairmen of the State Bank of India

There doesn’t seem to be anything controversial about the coverage that I’ve found so far, but I’m a bit unsure about its editorial standards and therefore accuracy. Should its use as a reference be discouraged or is it okay to use? FelixFLB (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

FelixFLB, I'm not sure if this qualifies for an RfC. There hasn't been any previous discussion on it and there is no visible dispute over its use.

Regarding the source itself, I am familiar with it and in my opinion it's a tabloid equivalent in financial news. I would recommend skepticism towards it in general and avoiding it in anything that might appear to be controversial. Their coverage can be quite misleading at times, for instance they tend to sensationalise the initiation of any investigation or even mundane penalties as a primer to a big "scam". There are also potential BLP issues in there. That said, I don't remember them reporting something that's outright false, so I would say its reliability is something along the lines of "additional considerations apply". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

My concern is similar to yours, is it just a tabloid-style publication or is it worse than that. I also found Sucheta Dalal, who seems to be the Chief Editor. She refers to herself as a scam investigator on her website. I get the feeling the more I look at it that it's just a blog for her dressed up as a major publication? I've continued looking into this, so will post a more in-depth comment shortly. FelixFLB (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment - To expand on my initial post, Moneylife and Sucheta Dalal made allegations about National Stock Exchange of India in 2015, which can viewed on Wikipedia here. It led to a defamation lawsuit by NSE against the publication shortly afterward. Moneylife then set up a dedicated topic on its website here where it lists various articles about the stock exchange and even has the topic in its navigation bar (seems highly unethical?). The majority of the articles in the topic/section are titled "scam" or "illegal." FelixFLB (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

FelixFLB, okay looking at their coverage of the NSE colocation controversy, I'll revise what I had stated before and just say that they are generally unreliable, i.e should not be used anywhere. There are glaring inaccuracies in these articles, for instance the site calls it an "algorithm scam", colocation itself has nothing to do with the use of algorithms in trading. There are articles in there which practically allege fraud and malpractice against officials at NSE and state that NSE was fined by SEBI due to that. The allegations themselves are unproven, if it were otherwise they would face jail time, SEBI dropped the charges and never took it to court, NSE was fined for not implementing adequate safeguards against exploits in the system.

Although the site isn't per se a blog (has multiple authors and supposedly has an editorial process), this is blog quality, probably worse. The NSE article also needs some cleanup. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of that. This was the main article today on the homepage, again about NSE. No other news outlet seems to have picked it up, and the grammar is terrible. "brokers have a membership of the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) they are suspended by that exchange too." FelixFLB (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been going through some of their recent articles and here are a few observations from that. They seems to have a disproportionate focus on the stock market, most of it is not attributed to any author but to "staff", there's poor research and frequent typos. This is neither really a financial news outlet or a personal finance website, and their editorial oversight is clearly inadequate.

Honestly, it appears somewhat predatory, as in its content looks like its targeted towards a specific type of small stock traders who are apprehensive of institutions and larger players. They have this disclaimer, which does not invoke confidence. They just repeatedly state that they are not liable for the accuracy of their material. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The actual reliability of a source is it's expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it. IMO any overall generalization about any source is faulty. Such should be eliminated and certainly not expanded. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

RFC Tghat.com

Greetings! Can you all weigh in on the reliability of this source > https://www.tghat.com/victim-list/ and whether it's should be deprecated or blacklisted? It is being used for articles related to Tigray war (claimed) massacres such as Adi Hageray massacre, Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Adi Hageray massacre diff source 2 and 4 is supporting the perpetrators and victims section. Issue: It's based on Tghat sources, not published elsewhere, no external sources.
• The vast majority on the Tghat list are without any external sources claiming ‘family of victims’ or ‘relatives and witnesses, email’ as source.
• The second most numerous source mentioned are links to social media posts(facebook & twitter posts), it is also using Assena TV as a source, but this is also a twitter link https://twitter.com/AtvAsena/status/1368960273831301123
• Then it's followed by opinion sites & self published sources such as Ethiopia insight(same source mentioned twice) https://www.ethiopia-insight.com/2021/02/03/for-years-i-opposed-the-tplf-but-i-also-oppose-this-war-on-tigray/ & Tigray Online which links it to a pdf (same pdf used as source 10 times) http://www.tigraionline.com/ethio-eritrean-crimes-in-za-anbessa.pdf
• Depracated source Dailymail is mentioned at least 3 times (same source used 3 times) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-9054001/Terrified-survivors-recount-attacks-civilians-Tigray.html
• Then there are very few sources linked to humanitarian organizations or news sites such as MSF but here you will find also discrepancies between TGHAT list which claims 31 victims and is listed twice using the same MSF source, the external MSF source which reported 3 victims. https://www.doctorswithoutborders.ca/article/ethiopia-horrified-brutal-murder-three-msf-colleagues Another one is the Telegraph, however the same source is posted 4 times on the list https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/bodies-torn-pieces-ethiopian-eritrean-troops-accused-massacre/ Ethiopian Human Rights Comission is mentioned 24 times(same source 24 times) which is one pdf source published by Addis Standards https://addisstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Brief-Monitoring-Report-Humera-Dansha-and-Bissober-.pdf

The very few reliable sources are mentioned several times over on the list, seemingly to inflate the number of reliable source, even inflated it makes less than 10%(estimate) of the list.

The Tghat source is also used at Sheraro massacre, February 2021 Wukro massacre, Grizana massacre, Dansha massacre and ​potentially more articles, where they cite Tghat Relatives and Eyewitnesses which has no external sources beyond Tghat.

Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No apparent editorial oversight; this appears to be a place for people to go to self-report. I would say it should never be used directly by WP, and I'd be surprised if reliable sources are using it for more than digging out anecdotal reports. —valereee (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Tghat (https://www.tghat.com/) is a relatively new news site based on community (redacted) contributions.

The argument made here is that Tghat’s verified list of civilian victims of the Tigray War (https://www.tghat.com/victim-list/) and Tghat's article on the Adi Hageray massacre (https://www.tghat.com/2021/03/19/a-preliminary-report-on-an-adi-hageray-massacre/) would not be reliable, and should not be used as WP references.

For the Adi Hageray article the argument is that its content isn't reported by any other independent media outlet and so should not be taken as reliable. I am not aware, indeed, of any other media outlet reporting on that; unfortunately the war situation and censorship by the Ethiopian Media Authority (https://twitter.com/EUinEthiopia/status/1415692335099305994) make access to and reporting of massacres a difficult task.

Yet, there is sufficient evidence that Tghat is duly checking the veracity of the information and that they do a serious effort to make sure documentation of massacres is accurate. Here are some examples of massacres documented by Tghat and by international media, where, thanks to their local network, Tgat was first to document the massacre.

• An article in The Guardian on the Abuna Yemata massacre (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/01/eritrean-soldiers-killed-19-civilians-in-latest-tigray-atrocity-locals-claim - 1 June 2021) confirms Tghat's article about the same massacre (https://www.tghat.com/2021/05/24/a-massacre-in-abuna-yemata-guh-at-the-foot-of-the-famous-rock-hewn-church/ - 24 May 2021).
• Shortly after its occurrence, Tghat reported the Debre Abbay massacre (https://tghat.com/2021/01/12/massacres-in-bora-selewa-and-debre-abay/ - 12 January 2021; and then https://tghat.com/2021/02/08/a-graphic-footage-of-the-debre-abay-massacre-what-do-we-know-about-it/ on 8 February 2021); it became world news after a further detailed and graphic article in The Daily Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/19/should-have-finished-survivors-ethiopian-army-implicated-brutal/ 19 February 2021).
• Tghat first reported the Bora massacre (https://tghat.com/2021/01/12/massacres-in-bora-selewa-and-debre-abay/ - 12 January 2021; and with more detail on 12 March: https://www.tghat.com/2021/03/12/the-bora-massacre/); Tghat’s initial reporting proved true, as can be read in the Los Angeles Times on 19 March 2021 (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-03-19/ethiopia-tigray-war-massacre-bora).

Hence the facts reported by Tghat were later confirmed by media outlets. We can conclude that reliable sources are using Tghat for more than digging out anecdotal reports. And also that, so far, internationally recognised journalists reporting on massacres in the Tigray War never contradicted Tghat’s findings.

On the victim list, the argument is that Tghat’s sources are the family of victims and social media. The information on victims whose sources are family or relatives are confirmed by Tghat calling them. Information including relevant social media posts by family members and friends are kept because they are useful contacts for future investigations.

Tghat’s victims list is a sourceless list, mainly because no media has been allowed for months and even when allowed, they couldn't do too much stories because of the security situation. Victim collection initiatives in other conflicts also rely heavily on accurate keeping of personal contributions.

Until Dawit S Gondaria comes up with information/data that contradicts Tghat’s reported massacres or victim list, or provides other hard evidence that this painstaking accounting of massacres and victims is flawed, Tghat should be considered as a reliable and even one of the top sources when it comes to casualties of the Tigray War. Rastakwere (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Rastakwere's summary is fair: Tghat is often the first to report specific war crimes in the Tigray War, and its reporting is later followed up by mainstream Western media and by academic sources, with no obvious significant discrepancies. There does appear to be editorial oversight.

Regarding the specific comment by Dawit Ethiopian Human Rights Comission is mentioned 24 times(same source 24 times) which is one pdf source published by Addis Standards (sic): the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has gained in indepedendence and resources since former political prisoner Daniel Bekele's nomination as its head. It unfortunately only publishes its reports, such as the Humera, Dansha and Bissober report, on a GAFAM-run etherpad instead of on its own website, but that doesn't make it an unreliable source - it only shows that the EHRC lacks basic internet skills and understanding. However, the fact that Addis Standard ("Standard", not "Standards"; a major Ethiopian English-language newspaper with a reputation for independence from the various federal governments that Ethiopia has had) hosts an identical copy of the pdf (same sha512sum) adds to the EHRC's credibility rather than weakens it. Tghat publishes its victim list on the same GAFAM-run etherpad; this again is unwise and violates both authors' and readers' privacy and security, but it does not make the general reporting itself unreliable. Boud (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the victims list published by Tghat seems to be primarily sourced from Facebook. —valereee (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Basing a list off Facebook is of concern.JoeZ451 (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Look i feel really bad responding to this, i even feel guilty to some extent discussing about war crimes and victims and i even thought about foregoing this discussion, hoewever since i iniated this discussion because of all the reasons mentioned above, i'm hoping Rastakwere can adress the concerns i mentioned earlier such as the discrepancy when Tghat cites the very few reliable sources and gives a different casualty number on the Tghat site, than from the reliable source.●@Boud if you read carefully i never doubted the EHRC & Addis Standard as a reliable source i mentioned them as the few reliable sources on Tghat, hoewever the EHRC has been mentioned in the Tghat list 24 times for the same event. I just pointed out Tghat inflating the mention of reliable sources by listing the same event and the same source more than twice. With that said i will now respond to Rastakwere summary:

• Your first point about supposed confirmed by Guardian, Quote: The testimony comes primarily from three individuals but is difficult to confirm in all its aspects. it is more appropriate to say it's alleged, not confirmed. Also question marks about the content of Tghat report vs the Guardian report.
• I have no acces to the telegraph, but i'm interested in reading it, so i'm going to ask Wikipedia Resource Exchange whether they can provide the article. I'm also interested to see whether this World News has been reported by other reliable sources. Update i received the article thanks to Resourche Exchange. This article mentions Quote: a pro-Tigrayan

blog reported Ethiopian soldiers had killed 100 civilians at the same monastery on Jan 5. no credit given to Tghat by name and not corresponding with the date given by @Rastakwere, but i stress, there's no doubt killings happend at Debre Abay since this is a video footage, and according to the article under investigation by EHRC.

• About the Bora massacre, the LA times describes Tghat as quote: Tghat, a news site run by pro-TPLF activists, reported on the Bora killings Jan. 12, along with another massacre that reportedly took place in an area called Debre Abay. puts into question about the neutrality of Tghat as a source. The LA report also said, quote: “However, the verification of this information was, and remains, extremely challenging,” Pau Sole said. so probably more appropriate to say it's alleged. I searched whether it has been reported by a reliable source elsewhere, it has been mentioned in a opinion piece by the Guardian [[56]], don't know if this falls under the Guardian blogs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Also question marks about the content of Bora report by Tghat vs that of LA times.

For all the reasons mentioned above, i think it would be better to mention directly mention reliable sources than through Tghat Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarification needed: The original posting of this RfC leads to confusion about whether the discussion is about the reliability of Tghat in general, or Tghat's victim list. I think that further comments should clarify if they're about Tghat or rather about Tghat's victim list. My main comment above was about Tghat in general, not about the victim list, though I did comment in my side comment that posting the victim list on a GAFAM-run etherpad is unwise. The victim list itself is in the spirit of the Iraq Body Count project. Boud (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarification given: It's about Tghat in general that is why i put Tghat.com in the title, but i specified the problem of the victim list because it was actually used as a source on several articles(mentioned above and potentially other articles) which has not been mentioned by any reliable/indepedent sources at all. Here's for example a preliminary report published by Tghat based on eyewithness accounts [[57]] & [[58]] the same is on the victims list, Relatives and eyewitneses without external sources. So Tghat and the victims list are interlinked. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Business Insider music coverage

Is Business Insider (renamed Insider in February 2021) generally reliable for its popular music coverage (reviews, ratings, etc.)? Example article, example review 1, review 2. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

FYI here is the most recent RfC on this source. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324#RfC: Business Insider I'm not sure if there is any reason to consider their reliability on popular music coverage separately. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Please see my responses below in the survey. In short, this RfC was intended to be narrower in scope than the last one to hopefully achieve some consensus around its reliability in a topic area. I unfortunately had bad luck in wording it. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 12:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Business Insider)

• Sure, why not, since ratings/reviews are all subjective anyway. It's reliable for the opinion of the publication or the author, which is the same as any other review of a piece of art. I would say it's mainstream enough where it's views could reasonably be of note in the reception section of an article, which is the real question. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Reviews and ratings are not a reliability issue. Any source is self-evidently reliable for their own opinion pieces, which is what reviews and ratings are. Whether or not any one review or rating or any other opinion is relevant to a particular article is a discussion for another venue, but strictly speaking, a source publishing its own opinion on a subject is always perfectly reliable for Wikipedia text that reports that opinion. --Jayron32 18:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Clearly permitted under WP:V and WP:RS. I can't put it more clearly or succinctly than the first two respondents, but just for the sake of registering my support: WP:PRIMARY sources are always valid as regards their own perspectives and the need for editorial controls simply doesn't apply in these circumstances. As Jayron notes, whether a particular review is useful and appropriate under the WP:DUE and WP:ONUS tests in any given instance is a separate question that needs to be addressed by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in each case, but for a certainty, there is no compelling high level reason to establish a ban on such reviews from this one outlet, any more than there would be for any other source providing a subjective artistic critique of any work. This is kind of so self-evident under our basic policies on sourcing that I wonder about the history that brought this inquiry here. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise: I apparently seldom have much luck wording RfCs. I saw that BI was "no consensus" at RSP following its status being raised as a question at a peer review, so wanted to see if we could get some consensus for a narrower scope RfC to a topic area. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  @GA-RT-22, Jayron32, and ScottishFinnishRadish: ^ --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, I see: in that context the narrow-purpose RfC makes sense, as it will give clarity for anyone who might have non-WP:SECONDARY/WP:MEDRS uses in mind. Good call! Snow ^{let's rap} 03:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes for statements attributed to their authors. Obviously. So you can say "Jane Doe of Business Insider says this is the best song ever written." But you can't say "This is the best song ever written" and source that to Jane Doe's review. For statements of fact I would use it, but carefully. "This song was recorded in 2014" is probably ok. "Taylor Swift was drunk when she wrote this song" I would leave out unless I had another source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• It is probably as good as most other sites reviewing music, which is to say pretty bad. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• This is a question of WP:UNDUE really, not "reliability" for subjective opinions. So this really isn't the board for that - David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Business Insider is a site that publishes reviews and reports news, just like any other music publication. Their articles are fine as sources as long as it comes with attribution. BawinV (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - being aware of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS distinction in any review between facts and the evaluation of the author as said by GA-RT-22... A “recorded in 2014” is fact “best ever” is their opinion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - Reliable depending of course on context, including for notability. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Ratings and reviews are the opinion of the author and Business Insider is like any other sites that do reviews. Sea Ane (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes So long as it comes with attribution. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes for things like that.Thelostone41 (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Boston Phoenix

I recently reverted an edit to the Dale Bozzio article concerning an animal welfare conviction, noting that there had been a consensus on the Talk page several years previously not to include it in the article. Part of the reason for this decision was the alleged unreliability of the Boston Phoenix, a local arts and entertainment paper. Is there any particular reason this source should be considered unreliable? Do they have a record for publishing false information or getting sued? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

MaxBrowne2, I don't think that issue was squarely confronted; the issue was more whether the conviction was a noteworthy event in that person's life. @Drmies: you were involved in that discussion but it's been a while, do you still consider it good law? Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Mackensen, it's a BLP issue still. A (now-retired) user, User:Doc2234, gave some pretty convincing arguments for why that paper (or at least that article) was questionable, but the bigger problem is this: a. apparently she was convicted on only one charge and served less than 30 days ("fewer"?), b. the thing is kind of like a magnet and has had a tendency for BLP-violating accretion, and c. if the Boston Phoenix is the only decent source for this, then what reason do we have to include this information? Drmies (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Well "Simon" was groovy, as is anything connected with Prince, and so is anything connected with Zappa... I'm inclined to like the woman. But isn't her animal welfare conviction sufficiently documented? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I confess that I spend less time with BLPs than others, but I'm unsure I buy the argument that we should exclude someone's criminal conviction from their biography because it's immaterial to their career as a musician. We certainly don't take that line with sportspeople, or actors, or even other musicians for that matter. A person's life is what it is, and we see them in the round. The repeated argument on the talk people that the publications could be sued for libel seems specious, at best, and makes me disinclined to take the user's other arguments seriously. This feels much like special pleading in this case and I'm at a loss to understand why. When we write about coaches and football players we include DUIs and speeding tickets, and we're arguing here about an animal welfare conviction? Either our standards need to come up or come down.

Anyway, main idea. The Boston Phoenix was an alt-weekly that apparently won some awards and like many alt-weeklies went under in the last decade. It is used elsewhere on Wikipedia, apparently without incident or comment. I see no real foundation for the attempts to undermine its credibility during this particular discussion; no one has disputed that they got the facts right. I would note that they are not the sole source for this story either. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

One could certainly argue that her brief prison sentence was unfair; it's not like she was a threat to the public or anything, despite her previous conviction for (gasp) marijuana posession. But it seems strange to omit a notable person's imprisonment from their biography. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not strange at all to think a 90-day stint in a county lockup on a matter that has no connection whatsoever to a person's career or notability, with a ony single source paying any attention to it, would be omitted. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Calton, though, to be clear, more than one source reported it, so that doesn't seem germane here, and that would seem to enhance the Phoenix's credibility if anything. Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that the Boston Phoenix is RS. However, if someone wants a source from a more established newspaper, wikimail me and I'll reply with an article from the New Hampshire Union Leader. John M Baker (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Well right, and could you just cut out the middleman and add it? For a negative, contentious fact in a BLP you'd want either an AAA-level source (which neither the Union Leader nor the Phoenxix are, as they're both biased and both probably have mediocre fact-checking), or two sources.

As to the BLP issue, that's for the BLP board, but in a nutshell what I like to consider is these things:

• So, first of all, the Wikipedia is really big, and an obscure private person (like Dale Bozzio) is really little. We can say whatever we want about her, especially if it's probably true, and there's really nothing she can do easily do about it, is there. (Sucks to be her, but she could have chosen to be an accountant and not a singer and she wouldn't have come into our crosshairs, so that's on her.) Second of all, for most not-very-famous people, their Wikipedia article is their main public face. For Bozzio, as is not uncommon, our article is her first google result. And other sites copy from or look to us. Third of all, while the Wikipedia may not last long (or may), the database -- the articles -- may we be around in one form or another for a long time, and be passed on further. So it's not just "we create her public face" but "we create her public face -- forever".
• And then, I say to myself, "with great power comes great responsibility". And I remind myself that I'm just as aswim in the moral world here at my keyboard as when I trip an old lady or give a dollar to a crippled orphan. I remind myself that "punching down" is a real phrase because it describes a real phenomenon, and that I'm not here to make people sad, hurt their feelings, hurt their reputation, if I can reasonably avoid it.
• So then, I ask myself, is there any possible way to justify not writing bad things about this person, without being unfair to the reader or doing egregious violence to the project's mission. If the bad thing is central to understanding the entity and what they have accomplished (or suffered) such that they're worthwhile learning about, then it becomes a difficult decision to weigh. If a reader would justifiably feel betrayed that we gave her a false understanding of the entity by withholding the data, then it becomes a difficult question to weigh. If it's not, the answer is easy! I like questions with easy answers!Herostratus (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable jumping into this BLP issue (especially since I edit under my real name), so I'm not going to edit the article myself. However, if someone else wants sources, I can provide them. The Union Leader article is a good one and gives a fairly balanced view, but there are additional sources available, including the Associated Press, so this definitely is not an RS issue. John M Baker (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because you haven't heard of her doesn't make her "obscure". She is well known to pop and rock music fans; I'm pretty sure Lady Gaga has heard of her. The suspicion is that if properly sourced negative information about a person is not included, the article is being whitewashed. I don't agree that there should be a presumption in favour of excluding such information. Problem is, when people tried to introduce the information, the quality of the sources was questioned, spuriously in my opinion. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but the point is to keep the information out of the article, even in the face of the existence of people like you. Whatever it takes. I'm more concerned about the moral issue than worrying about being spurious on a website, see WP:IAR and WP:1Q. She's obscure. Maddonna or Beyonce I don't worry too much about because they are big enough to not be hurt by anything we say. This gal, not so much. it's not that I haven't heard of her, it's that google hasn't, much.

And of course we want to whitewash articles about obscure persons. Holy shit why would we not. We are not the Tattler. Altho not everyone thinks that, apparently. Herostratus (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Well that's weird. How famous does someone have to be before negative information may be included? Are there some objective criteria for this? Given that she has a fairly substantial article and quite a bit of discography, she can't be that obscure. If they're notable enough to have a wikipedia article, they're notable enough to have a prison sentence noted. And citing IAR is never helpful in discussions, it's basically a catch-all excuse. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Well a catchall excuse to stop someone who is... not a gentleman... from deciding these things, if that's all that's available, will have to do. IAR is a key pillar of this project, one of the Five Pillars, and if you don't like tough luck. We are not rulebound and we are not the DMV or anything like that. And of course it's subjective. Most things in life are... How expensive a shirt you want, whether you want to hang out with Tim, if you would rather have Thai or Mexican tonite, if you want to keep watching the game if the Sox are down 7-1... etc etc etc etc. This is life. Do you think there are rules written down for all this? Is not editing the Wikipedia part of life? Do you image that you remove yourself from the moral universe when you sit down to type? You don't. You never can, not ever for one moment.

We hopefully have the sense that God gave sheep and can use our wits to figure these things out. If I write bad stuff about Kim Jong Un or Barack Obama or Mick Jagger, that's not a huge deal, because they won't care and why should they. They have a public face way too big for use to do much damage. This person, not so much. Yes like most everything in this world it is subjective. My subjective opinion is that she's small enough compared to use that it's punching down to be on her case about a one-time thing that's not central to what we want to present to the reader.

My take is, given the choice between fucking people over and not, I choose the latter. Other people might feel differently, but I will hinder them if I may. Herostratus (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If you think the WP:BLP policy is wrong there are places to effect that change. This isn't one of them. Do you have any views on the reliability of the Boston Phoenix? You've opined on the reliability of its fact-checking but I missed where you gave evidence of that assertion. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe, but the point is to keep the information out of the article, even in the face of the existence of people like you. That is uncalled for, especially since MaxBrowne2 actually removed the material in question from the article (in keeping with the previous RFC) and only then came here to ask for additional opinions. I think that as far as this goes, given that there's plentiful secondary coverage among reliable sources (which should be added to the article if we do include this, since we shouldn't rely on just one source), the hard requirements of WP:BLP and WP:RS are clearly satisfied, but that that doesn't necessarily mandate inclusion - there's a huge gap between stuff that we can include and stuff that we must include. In this case it has a reasonable amount of coverage but is not central to the subject's notability, so I think it's basically just an editorial call on our part based on complex stuff like how much is in the article overall and therefore how WP:DUE this would be relative to the biography as a whole... as well as to what extent the article subject is a public figure. But those are more questions for WP:NPOVN and WP:BLPN than here; WP:RS, at least, is satisfied. --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

"Fame/popularity" is not really a policy based argument. High/low-profile-ness is, and that subject seems to be high profile as per WP:LPI. WP:BLPPUBLIC says: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. There are multiple third-party reliable sources, [59][60][61][62][63][64][65] (...). At a skim it seems no editor actually disputes that the event occurred, and AP is a HQRS, so BLP/RS objections seem a bit iffy. High profile individuals aren't eligible for the exclusionary protection of WP:BLPCRIME either, not that it'd be particularly relevant since there's a conviction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I would add as a consideration (I don't know for sure) is if this something closer to just celebrity gossip rather than a "serious" conviction. We routinely do not post "everyday infractions" like speeding tickets, drunk driving, etc. unless that is a serious pattern for a public figure that merits enduring coverage in sources. It is hard (but not impossible) to find RSes about this conviction but there seems to be little more than news that she received and served the punishment for it, and it hasnt been brought up since 2009 that I can easily see. This question is far more subjective whether inclusion is merited, but we can state that it is not an RS issue that prevents inclusion since some quality RS sourcing exists. --Masem (t) 00:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, drunk driving is often covered in articles (eg Tiger Woods, Justin Bieber, Michelle Rodriguez). But in any case I don't think animal-cruelty conviction ... Bozzio was originally hit with 13 animal-cruelty charges, which stemmed from her failed attempt to "save" feral and sick cats from the New Hampshire woods. Two cats were found dead and 12 were put down following an indeterminable period of neglect falls into the category of everyday infractions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

That's why I'm saying its not a clear cut line. To take Bieber, he is well known to have a long list of confrontations with the law while younger, so it can been seen to make sense to talk about them that way. Here, there are sufficiently reliable sources to include it, and the baseline of PUBLICFIGURE is met, but its one singular case that seems isolated. I'm not saying it can't but there's reasonable arguments that could be made in a consensus discussion to omit. Just that saying we can't include because there aren't good RSes is not correct. --Masem (t) 05:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The Conservative Woman

• conservativewoman.co.uk  

I've come across this publication several times, it seems to be a fringe British right-wing opinion publiciation/glorified group blog that promotes anti-vaxx and anti-lockdown rhetoric. Checking the duses we have about 20 citations to it, mostly in BLPs. Does anybody object to me removing all of them? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it's definitely a source worth deprecation (for the news, facts etc.), but the refs generally lead to opinion pieces published by the subjects of these articles, so I believe you shouldn't delete these; there is one mention in the article which mentions the publication's endorsement for Brexit - I'd have it stay, as the editor-in-chief was apparently among BBC's 100 Women so seemingly notable. For all other uses, I'd delete on sight. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, having a look again most of these look ok under WP:ABOUTSELF, I've gone ahead and removed those where I think it were undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I would strongly support deprecation as this is a totally fringe conspiracy theory group blog masquerading as a mainstream Tory site, but it shows up in Google News so might be used as a source inadvertently. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It's had a number of opinion pieces from some quite prominent Tory politicans, at least historically, but I agree that its editorial direction has gone off the deep end since COVID, including classy comparsions of vaccine passports to "apartheid". [66] Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support deprecation. Yikes, just had a look at the website – vaccines are poison, on the front page. Existing refs should be scrutinised at the very least, although I fully support complete deprecation and removal of the small number of existing uses. While some look acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF, I'm aware that Hemiauchenia has already removed the worst uses and yet I can still quickly see problematic uses, such as MigrationWatch UK, where it's used to report non-notable, non peer-reviewed politicised research without, presumably, any kind of editorial scrutiny: e.g. "the group has claimed that current migration rates require the construction of one new house every six minutes,[66]". Jr8825 • Talk 19:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• I also support its deprecation, or at least add the unreliable assertion here for archives if it doesn't pass. I've seen this before and ensured that extant usage was only for ABOUTSELF. Still, the latter only allows minimal uncontroversial use. It's unfortunate that once again conservative must mean ridiculous and unreliable, and that these happen to be women, but this definitely is it. The last possible use would be if a very notable person writes in it and that for some reason that is considered a due attributed opinion somewhere. —PaleoNeonate – 20:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  @PaleoNeonate: How may uses did you end up removing? If there were a large number of uses for factual information then there is likely a serious case for deprecation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  If I recall correctly it was mostly used for ABOUTSELF already, —PaleoNeonate – 17:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, this is trash. Deprecate for dangerous conspiracy crankery. We used to have an article on it, but it thankfully died at AFD. (Though if its crankery achieves note, it might get an article again for that.) There is no reason to treat this as any more reliable than a Facebook post by a subject, and it's absolutely unusable for factual claims in general; even under WP:ABOUTSELF, it should be avoided - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• I’m just not seeing it as at all usable, they don’t appear to be taken seriously at all by even conservative media in the UK and I’m not seeing any of the other hallmarks of a reliable source. It also appears that they cross the line from punditry to misinformation hence deprecation may be in order. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Not a source we should be touching. Deprecate. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Why use deprecation, RfCs, and waste a row on RSP for small sources like this? Can't it just be added to the spam blacklist along with other similar sources? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Is WP:RSP effectively a list of banned sources?

I know that RT is a deprecated source, generally I wouldn't consider using it, however [67] it is a reliable source on what it publishes. Given that Eva Bartlett, the subject of this BLP, writes commentary pieces for RT, then I dunno, I thought it might be common sense that it could be referenced if only for what she'd said there? Apparently not, [68]. I note especially in the rush to remove it both editors have managed to butcher the text leaving wiki syntax exposed.

My question, are we to remove anything sourced to RT no matter what the reason? WCM_email 16:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

No. Any source that isn't blacklisted could be used for content here, depending on the claim it was used to support. You could definitely use an RT article as a source for the statement that RT published that article. The reason you don't seen these sorts of uses all over the project is because of WP:DUE. If RT publishes an article saying X, and there's no better source covering the fact that RT said X, then it's probably not worth us mentioning that RT said X. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems that in this instance the text was already supported by two other sources and that the link was more like an external link to an archive of the column itself (deemed unnecessary there). But, consider an opinion post in RT by a notable person, as MPants said it would depend on if it's WP:DUE and could also be attributed (WP:ATTRIBUTE) instead of stated in Wikipedia's voice. —PaleoNeonate – 17:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I recall one editor, I forgot his name, seemed to spend his editing time going around removing deprecated sources. I don't think they should be removed automatically and if there is no remaining cite, then a cn tag should be placed, possibly even an effort to find an alternative being made by a removing editor. A lot of rt cites were made before it was decided that they were to be deprecated.Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"Doing valuable and often thankless work to improve the encyclopedia", is what I think you meant to write there. --Calton | Talk 17:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

After a bit of searching, Discussed here and here. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Calton would seem to be right, you appear to be demeaning productive and valuable work which improves the encyclopedia in a number of both short term and long term ways. I get that you personally would do it differently, but that doesn’t mean that the other editors are wrong per say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not mention anyone by name initially and my comments were directed at indiscriminate removal by any editor as per the links I just gave.Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I know, thats why I said work and not editor or editors in that first sentence. If they are only removing deprecated sources in situations in which their removal is valid (outside about self and other minor exceptions) then it isn’t indiscriminate removal, perhaps you mean something less hyperbolic? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Indiscriminate removal is what I am against and to repeat, it is explained what that is in the links I provided and as was noted by another editor, it seems we sometimes don't follow our own policies.Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m not seeing a policy based consensus that resembles what you’re saying in any of these links. In the discussion at hand here WP:BLP would appear to be the most immediate policy and it does not allow for any discrimination at all... It must be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” (emphasis in original) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

My initial response, which I had not really expected to be controversial, was directed at the general question posed not the specific case. As for policies contradicting each other, I don't what the rules are there, the solution would seem to be to amend the policies in clarification if necessary. I haven't looked at it, but if the facts of the specific case warrant removal, then it is not what I would call "indiscriminate".Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it, looking back through the discussion I think the problem lies with the OP making a complete hash of the opening/naming of the discussion... We’re answering completely different questions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It was discussed here too: [69]. This kind of removal actually doesn't make sense if you spend more than a few minutes thinking about it, even if you believe the sources are the worst things to exist on the planet. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought it might be common sense that it could be referenced if only for what she'd said there? Strange, that's not the rationale you gave in your revert: rv you need to look at how sources are used, rather than blindly remove them, in this case used to illustrate RT false reporting. How, exactly does this link do this? --Calton | Talk 17:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP is effectively a list of banned sources. If it's in red (generally unreliable), you need to think of a good reason for using it. If it's in dark red (deprecated), usage is effectively WP:IAR, and you'll need a very good reason to use it, or it'll be removed. The list of very good reasons is very small, and I can't think of any off the top of my head. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess rt should be considered reliable for what they say about themselves at least, aboutself.Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Deprecation is a sensible idea, but some thought needs to go into the removal. I listed the issues with this mass removal approach comprehensively at the ANI. The indiscriminate removal of sources, not addressing the content it apparently supports (ie by removal or replacement), objectively provides no improvement for the encyclopaedia. But regarding the issue of reliability for what it said, some editors just blanket oppose any kind of link to crappy sources. I highly doubt you'll find any consensus for any inclusion of RT even if reliable in context, and I doubt it's even possible to hold a discussion on how deprecated sources are best dealt with (see that ANI for reason why). The topic has become too politicised. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

We used to joke about cabals on wikipedia but sadly no longer. It's got to the point you can't have a sensible conversation about this. WCM_email 19:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• For BLP there really isn’t an about self exception to deprecation, our standards are higher in that space. In a BLP a deprecated source and anything solely sourced to it must be removed on sight, we have no wiggle room on that one unlike outside the BLP space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back, I don't think that's true. Why would it be okay under WP:ABOUTSELF to use a self-published, spur-of-the-moment social media post by Paul Politician to say "Paul Politician posted this", but it wouldn't be okay to use a planned, printed-on-paper opinion piece published in The Daily Mail to say "Paul Politician wrote this"? That's not logical at all. Remember, ABOUTSELF's first words are "Self-published and questionable sources may be used" – not "Self-published sources may be used, but questionable ones can't be". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Deprecated =/= questionable, those are two different levels of unreliable. For our purposes publisher matters, note that in your example there are two different publishers (the politician and the Daily Mail) so it is entirely logical for them to be treated differently. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It's the same author writing the same thing, so it's entirely logical for it to be treated the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Same author, different publishers (one deprecated, one not). I will also note that your logic appears to be whatever is currently convenient for your position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The disputable item that the OP linked to is a cite of rt.com used for the name of an rt.com section. Alalch Emis on July 19 inserted it. David Gerard on July 28 removed it "... per WP:RSP". Wee Curry Monster on July 28 reverted David Gerard. Calton on July 28 reverted Wee Curry Monster. My opinion is that, since WP:RSP is an essay-class page with "summaries" that can be unreliable and be based on formulaic context-less RfCs attended by a few people, its use to override real policies and guidelines would be illegitimate. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Much ado about nothing. The statement was sourced to two other sources, so there was no need to keep a deprecated source. JBchrch talk 18:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

oh, it's the DM fans again.

In my experience, the fans of deprecated sources consider any removal "indiscriminate", and often treat their favoured deprecated source as somehow worthy of greater consideration than merely bad sources that anyone would remove on sight. They will go to tremendous lengths to find excuses why bad sources are good, actually.

The appropriate policy is WP:V, which explicitly refers to the strong guideline WP:RS as the way to proceed.

WP:RS says: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources.

WP:RS is a guideline, but it's included by explicit reference in the first sentence of WP:V, which is policy: On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. The words "reliable source" link further down the page to #What_counts_as_a_reliable_source, which is headed with Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Verifiability - which is policy - requires the use of reliable sources. Deprecated sources are those that have been found, by strong consensus, to be generally unreliable. RT is a deprecated source. This means it has been found, by broad general consensus, to be all but unusable on Wikipedia.

The deprecation RFC for RT says: There is general consensus that RT is an unreliable source for Wikipedia content, and that it publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail.

The referenced 2017 deprecation RFC for the Daily Mail says that it is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.

(Note that a lot of the arguments above are the same arguments that Daily Mail and Sun partisans use, including Daily Mail partisans who are still unwilling to accept two broad general RFCs deprecating the Daily Mail.)

WP:BURDEN - which is policy - states: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

As such, removing links to RT is almost always the correct thing to do, as it is a source that has been found generally unreliable. It is not mandatory - but it is almost always correct.

WP:BURDEN - which is policy - also states: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So the burden of proof for addition or restoration of deprecated sources is entirely on the person doing so, and not on the person removing the deprecated sources.

The particular usage in question was an WP:UNDUE fact about RT. It was eminently removable and there was no reason to think it was something that justified using a deprecated source.

If you want material from deprecated sources, then the onus is surely, by policy, 100% on you to find an RS to keep the material in. If you think I have this wrong, please explain why I have the policy above incorrect.

I would also like to hear from the people who don't want me to remove their favourite deprecated sources, detailing what they're doing about our massive backlog of deprecated sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I wholly endorse this comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

😂‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‏‏ ‎I actually saw that coming! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

and it's a cut'n'paste response, but then it is in response to cut'n'paste arguments - David Gerard (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I figured as much. Doesn't change a thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Me too. If the only "source" to mention something is absolute dreck, then it is almost always correct to remove that thing from the article, on the grounds that no one trustworthy has cared about it. If a deprecated source is redundant with reliable ones, then it contributes nothing, and the pointer to the deprecated source should be removed to keep Wikipedia tidy. XOR'easter (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I have previously opposed some cases plain removal of some deprecated sources for uncontroversial material (mostly comparable to WP:ABOUTSELF), but didn't oppose flagging or replacement. For uncontroversial I mean, for example, referencing the exact date of a public diplomatic event. MarioGom (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I also note that Wee Curry Monster started a discussion of an editor without notifying them in any way. Best not have that become a habit - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess that's the one thing we might agree about, and that's the reason I pinged you, as well as the editor whom you reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The specific claim that was sourced was exclusively this: The "Op-ed" section used to be called "Op-edge". The source for this claim is an Internet Archive page (only the archive page) of the RT's website, as it appeared some time ago, when the section was styled "Op-edge". This absolutely verifies the claim. Internet Archive is an amazing source for what was on the internet. This was part of an edit that changed her work from "writes op-eds" (someone made a cardinal error when they figured out that the subject writes op-eds upon seeing that RT styled one of the sections on their website "Op-ed(ge)") to "writes commentary" (language actually used in a reliable source). Removing any mention of op-ed/"Op-ed(ge)" would have been fine as well, but retaining this term/name in some form, although contextualized, appeared to be a more conservative edit (technically a more gradual change). — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I'm not a Daily Mail fan, I've never bought the paper, it's not my preferred source and was completely irrelevant to mention it. Nor am I a fan of any "deprecated" sources. My preference is to ideally use academic sources. But your little diatribe does illustrate the issue, you start from the outset assuming bad faith, it's akin to a religious zealot denouncing heretics. In your mind, it's a black and white issue, you're right, everyone else is wrong and for some reason you seem to think this allows you to be gratuitously uncivil. But as a bonus I'm sure the DM appreciates the free publicity.

Except it simply isn't the case, there are things published in deprecated sources that we might occasionally wish to cite - for example the column of a writer who writes for RT. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and if anyone thought for a moment and applied a little common sense it would not be controversial. As one editor mentions above "This kind of removal actually doesn't make sense if you spend more than a few minutes thinking about it, even if you believe the sources are the worst things to exist on the planet." I find it deeply sad that we're not able to have a reasonable conversation about this. You are welcome to have the WP:LASTWORD, I trust it will not detract too much from "Doing valuable and often thankless work to improve the encyclopedia".

I apologise for forgetting to ping you earlier, it's not something I would normally do and a simple omission on my part. You have a nice day now. WCM_email 11:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Entirely second WM's comment here. David Gerrard's comment is simply gratuitous, based apparently on the idea that opponents of the DM ban must have loved it to the same extent that they (Gerrard) hated it, as though there could be no other motive for opposing blanket bans. I note that this intolerant attitude seems to have been the main cause of the recent exit of one of the ban's main advocates ("Kill it! Kill it with fire!"). FOARP (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If I add up the various times this issue has cropped up, I've spent a few hours of my life thinking about it (including reviewing pagefuls of DG's edits to see if I found any of them overzealous), and removal still makes sense to me. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn or a CV host; we aren't here to tally every thing that a writer has written. If no reliable sources have taken note of someone's publishing in a deprecated source, then policy straightforwardly implies that we have nothing to say about it. If reliable sources have taken note, then we use them, and refrain from directing our readers to "references" in the worst publications in the industry. Is it a black-and-white issue? No ... but the gray side is really, really dark. XOR'easter (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

While I wholeheartedly agree that "there are things published in deprecated sources that we might occasionally wish to cite” I wholeheartedly disagree that the "column of a writer who writes for RT” is one of those things... That clearly falls under WP:BLP and as such would require a high quality source which a deprecated source never is even in the situations its usable in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Another important thing I would point out is that when cleaning up depreciated or unreliable sources, the vast majority of removals are just replacing them with a higher-quality source or removing them as unnecessary because we are already citing better sources (which someone probably added because they recognized that the existing source was no good.) Those are just simple uncontroversial improvements; bad sources should be replaced by better ones whenever possible, and when we already have a strong source we shouldn't be citing a weak one, since it makes the article look bad. --Aquillion (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable sources described Wikipedia's "deprecation" as a ban on a source. The only allowable use of deprecated sources is for "uncontroversial self-descriptions." That is the same for self published sources. But we cannot use articles attributed to third parties because we don't know if they were written by that person or if they are accurately published. If we allowed use of these articles, then we would be treating RT as a "generally unreliable" source. TFD (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• As others have said, depreciation is technically not a ban because there are exceptions that allow sources to sometimes be used in limited contexts regardless of their reliability (eg. WP:ABOUTSELF / WP:SELFPUB.) Opinion is a special case and is a bit more controversial because WP:RSOPINION is ambiguous on to what extent opinion sources are held to the WP:RS standar. But it does not free them from it entirely and no reasonable reading of it could reach that conclusion; in practice, depreciated (and in many case, even simply unreliable) sources can only be cited for opinion via the restrictions WP:ABOUTSELF / WP:SELFPUB, the same way we would not cite someone's opinions from a blog without abiding by those restrictions; the lack of acceptable editorial control and fact-checking means that publication on an unreliable source adds nothing, so things "published" there should be treated the same as Reddit posts, Medium posts, or the like - ie. in extremely rare cases we might be able to do this, but the author must be an established expert in a relevant field whose output on that topic has also been published in actually reliable sources, and even then should be used extremely rarely and cautiously, and never, under any circumstances, for any statements about WP:BLPs, even when stated as opinion. There are almost always going to be WP:DUE concerns if no WP:RS has taken note of something someone has said as well - it is difficult to argue how an opinion that appears in no reliable sources at all could possibly be due. The basic standard of "treat it like a blog" is useful shorthand for anything cited to an unreliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Zooming out to the more general question, what has been created is essentially a list of banned sources. The Perennial sources page, created simply to avoid repeated discussion of the same source, has now turned into a list of approved and disapproved sources. This is also the reason for the regular RFCs on this page to render judgement generally on which sources it is OK or not OK to use, without any reference for the circumstances it is being used in. This is just a bad development, harmful to the project. It has not even prevented repeated discussion, as the continuing re-opening of the DM ban on this page over the past two years has demonstrated. FOARP (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• I mean. To the extent that RSP is a list of "banned" sources (or at least sources banned outside of the narrow usages outlined above), unreliable sources have always been banned. As WP:V says, Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. The only difference is how quickly or aggressively we remove them. RSP serves to formally settle whether and to what degree a source is generally reliable, but it does not change our basic policy on unreliable sources. And WP:DAILYMAIL has decisively resolved confusion over whether the Daily Mail is reliable - all discussions since then have overwhelmingly backed that fact; the question has never again been successfully reopened, since the original outcome has been repeatedly reaffirmed (in fact, at a quick glance, it has received larger mandates each time, which shows that your feelings on the subject aren't widely-held.) As I'm sure you're aware, since you're one of the people who has most consistently rejected the outcome of those discussions, it's impossible to completely end discussion on a topic as long as there is anyone who objects, but since that RFC the Daily Mail has been handled consistently across the project in a manner that reflects our policies, which is the main goal of such RFCs. And I think that, overall, the quality of our sourcing has dramatically improved since 2017 and since WP:RSP was created - you indicate that you personally feel that it has been "harmful to the project", but I'm not seeing how. In the last few years the world has faced a deluge of misinformation that Wikipedia, overall, has handled admirably - and most mainstream coverage seems to agree. See [70][71][72][73][74][75][76]. Some of these sources specifically mention our willingness to depreciate the Daily Mail as an example of how effective we are. --Aquillion (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It is harmful, it is being treated by some as a de facto ban in all but name, even the examples you give above are being removed citing WP:RSP as justification. Even if challenged the proponents are organised and will defeat any objection with mob rule (even when their edit and justification make no sense); I don't think it's healthy when their first recourse is to personally attack anyone they see as "crossing them" and tag team edit war their changes into articles. It's become so politicised it's actually impossible to have a civil conversation with some editors. WCM_email 11:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think WhatamIdoing made a point well in a different policy discussion that we should build a culture around building content and consensus and not necessarily rule-following. RSP is obviously a good thing, and the list is an asset to Wikipedia and the quality of its articles. The only issue is with the (at times) senseless enforcement of it, used to prohibit text or sourcing that would never be controversial in the slightest if people thought about the content in context and not just about applying an abstract rule.

I think as long as we keep doing this "DM fans" thing to halt any productive discussion, nothing will change on that front. I think the above parties should show a bit more restraint, but I recognise it's a very effective method of shutting down discussions that could change consensus away from ones preferred position, so I understand why the method is used I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

What is your planned course of action, that doesn't violate the policy provisions I replied in detail with? You seem to be claiming some sort of false balance, not something based in anything substantive. What do you want to happen?

a very effective method of shutting down discussions This is what the Daily Mail deprecation RFC was for: stopping querulous nonsense where people kept trying to put forward this obviously terrible source. Much as, in the present discussion, an editor is trying to put RT into the wiki as a source. As such, you're saying that WP:DAILYMAIL worked as intended, to make a better Wikipedia.

I gave a detailed policy-based response to this issue above, and you're doing an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know DG, I don't have all the answers myself. But I do see a problem. From the ANI it's clear to me that some aspects of this 'deprecation removal' - perhaps not necessarily the specific issue preceding this RSN section - are wholly illogical and counter-productive to their stated purpose. I feel like you either don't understand that 'the deprecation of Daily Mail' (one of 40-ish deprecated sources) is a separate conversation to 'the nature of deprecation', or you're muddling them up. What I would like to see is a calm, productive discussion on the latter, as to how deprecation is best implemented to make a better Wikipedia. The implementation needs to be connected to the issue it's seeking to fix.

Some results of such an RFC should be to expand Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources with appropriate guidance to that effect. In addition, some thought needs to be given to how RFCs are conducted on this board. I'm not convinced, based on my experiences reviewing RSN discussions for closure, that the current system is ideal. Guidance needs to be added as to what RSN RfCs should be focused around (i.e. finding evidence of unreliability, what kinds of evidence one should look for [statements by other sources, independent regulators, how should each be weighed? I've seen inconsistent RSN discussions on those points for no apparent reason]). When should a source be deprecated, vs be marked as generally unreliable? What kinds of evidence should we seek for that determination?

Such a discussion cannot happen in this environment. It would quickly turn into a battleground. Part of the reason why, but not the only reason, is that you frame any discussion about deprecation into the "DM fans" relitigating a 2017 RfC. I'm sure such a group may well exist, but it hardly seems relevant to most of these discussions from my perspective. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Your attempt to blame querulous attempts to relitigate deprecation on me saying "DM fans" comes across as performative rather than substantive, because you're still being vague as to the particular issues you claim to have with RSN RFCs - apparently deliberately, as you're tacking on excuses for being vague, rather than stating your claim. Instead, you're trying to make out that it's my fault for actually removing generally prohibited sources per the multiple RFCs that say that deprecated sources should be removed.

I suggest you put together something stating the problem clearly and convincingly, with examples that would convince someone who doesn't already agree with you, and stating actionably what you want to happen next.

Note that, as I link below, we've already had one RFC endorsing the concept of RFCs on general reliability. So you'll need to come up with something that addresses everything in that sufficiently convincingly - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I listed several specific issues at the ANI.

1. The complete removal of factually accurate content, evidently without even a cursory Google search
2. The removal of uncontroversial usages of content
3. The replacement of refs with just

These are issues because, for example, if you have a sentence sourced to Daily Mail, which we say is very problematic, and you just replaced a cite that sticks out in red for those with the userscript with , you've just moved it into a tracking cat of 1 million pages making it even harder to correct and likely never to be reviewed again. Secondly, if someone does want to review it, being able to read the DM source might help them research other sources that could verify, but since you've purged the link that effort is made difficult.

As for my issues with RSN discussions, I listed some general ones above. A particular example is this. I don't read that source but I presume it publishes dozens of articles per day, incl on other topics (a skim of their site shows sports coverage). We're calling for it to be banned, and all existing usages to be purged, based on one story? There needs to be real criteria on when deprecation is appropriate and the specific remedies that should be employed to fix the identified problem.

As for whether discussions can happen, see this failed attempt at having a discussion, with several valid concerns raised there. The inability to stay focused (not just from you, I recognise) obviously led to it drying out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• The only issue is with the (at times) senseless enforcement of it, used to prohibit text or sourcing that would never be controversial in the slightest if people thought about the content in context and not just about applying an abstract rule. I'm not seeing this, in general. The vast majority of removals of depreciated or unreliable sources fall into one of two categories - either there was already another source citing the text in question, or they get replaced with a higher-quality source. Both of these are net improvements to the project; yes, it is true that the text is often less controversial - the low-hanging fruit is the easiest place to improve our sourcing - but in general we should work to improve the quality of our sourcing, which makes the encyclopedia look better and encourages new editors to use strong sourcing based on the quality of sources they see when they arrive. Additionally, such improvements make it easier to skim through sourcing and find the more serious situations (where unreliable or even depreciated sources are used to cite WP:EXCEPTIONAL or BLP-sensitive things.) I do not understand how anyone could reasonably object to such improvements - by my reading they are an straightforward implementations of both the relevant WP:RSN discussions and WP:RS / WP:V itself. --Aquillion (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

de facto ban in all but name Or, as WP:DAILYMAIL put it: generally prohibited. You're protesting that a general prohibition, by widespread community consensus, and ratified in a second RFC, is treated as a general prohibition, with an extremely few exceptions. That's because the words generally prohibited mean it's a general prohibition. That is: you're using a lot of words and cries of unreasonability to try to do an end run around two broad general RFCs, an RFC endorsing the concept of RFCs on source reliability, and multiple deprecation RFCs since.

I don't expect you to stop, but I also don't see why your repeated attempts to go against broad general consensus should be treated seriously. If you think you could swing countervailing RFCs, by all means do so. At this point, you're just being querulous - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• generally prohibited means "generally prohibited" - it shouldn't be a hard concept - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope, again you're simply being rude and obnoxious in order to avoid discussion. I have not made repeated attempts to go against consensus and such meaningless hyperbole is unhelpful at this juncture. I am talking about the very few exceptions where it is appropriate. The point being, you insist on removing even those. As to "querulous" again you demonstrate a presumption of bad faith. As I said it's nigh on impossible to have a reasonable conversation in such an atmosphere. WCM_email 14:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

What you're talking about, then, is an editorial disagreement - and this entire section of RSN is a coatrack on an edit you wanted in a given article, and which multiple editors have already disagreed with you on, which suggests I was correct to remove it.

These are deprecated sources. A situation where they have almost no usage in Wikipedia is the expected outcome for sources which are generally prohibited. You are lashing out at being editorially disagreed with and claiming that disagreeing with you editorially is somehow malfeasance - David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually several editors agreed with me that your removal defied common sense but I guess that confirmation bias and your general habit of finding reasons to ignore opinions you dislike allowed you to skip over that. I am not the one lashing out here, I haven't referred to you in a derogatory manner and lord knows given the attitude you've displayed it would have been understandable. Once again you resort to ridiculous hyperbole, I have claimed nothing of the sort; the comment I made was that it should be possible to have a reasonable and courteous discussion between editors but your confrontational attitude makes that impossible. As usual the WP:LASTWORD is yours, enjoy. WCM_email 19:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary entry for "generally": "1. in most cases; usually." "2. In general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions." "3. By or to most people; widely." So an RfC which says "generally prohibited" is not prohibiting everything, as the closers of the DM RfC made clear by saying that opinions are not banned. The policy-based argument is that WP:V policy says use reliable sources, but the determination of reliable sources can be via WP:RS guideline which points to context, determination via WP:RSP non-policy non-guideline is not policy-based argument. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• RSP was never intended to be a list of “approved” and “banned” sources, but I do think that is what it has evolved into. Evolution happens with any policy… subsequent interpretations often take the policy beyond original intent. At that point, question becomes: do we accept the evolution (and adjust the policy page to account for it), or do we reject the evolution and try to walk it back (clarifying the policy to make original intent clearer)? Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think anything needs to be done. It's a list of perennial sources, meaning sources which are frequently brought up here. As a result of their frequent discussion, we have solid consensuses on how to treat them, ranging from "this source is almost always reliable" to "this source is almost always unreliable". WP:RSP is thus a record of past discussions and their outcomes.

  Is if effectively a list of banned sources? Well, no, not really. It includes many reliable sources, such as ABC News and Ars Technica. And even those sources in red aren't banned, but deprecated. They can still be used for attributed claims, and in some unusual contexts.

  I certainly don't want to have a policy that states we can never cite Breitbart, for example, because they publish conspiracy theories and I may need to cite them to write in one of our articles that Breitbart published support for such-and-such a conspiracy theory. And I worry about scope creep, too. The last thing I want is to see generally reliable sources get banned because we aren't familiar with them, or we don't like their strident anti-Wikipedia bias, for example.

  On the flip side, I don't want to see this list removed, either. It's made my editing much easier when I can scan WP:RSP for a suspect source and get a clear answer on its general reliability. Removing it would only make editing more difficult, and would embolden POV pushers who want to cite many deprecated sources to support their views. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Is hipinpakistan a reliable source?

I was checking one page then I found out that IP 59.103.96.130 (now blocked) was adding hipinpakistan.com as a ref to several pages. Is it considered reliable source? Thanks Hasan (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ulubatli Hasan: They certainly claimed so that they are one of the most reliable sources at the minute but that was more of a POV blog. Wait out for more responses.DBigUVrays (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It depends on how it's being used. Because their 'about' page says they're a source of (among other things) gossip, then I'd like to see corroboration in other sources before using it. Or make sure that the Wikipedia article citing it attributes the claim properly, so it isn't Wikipedia's voice making the claim. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Idlebrain.com

There is a long term doubt over whether this qualifies as RS. I feel it does. This has been discussed before here and here. Ab207 and Bovineboy2008‎‎, you are welcome to share your opinion. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd start by saying that Idlebrain is a farily comprehensive source when it comes to Telugu cinema, espcially for the films that released between 1999 and 2010, where no other comparative source is available online. It is repository of uncontroversial information related to release dates, runtimes, cast and credits, awards and nominations, exclusive interviews etc. that would satisfy our requirements. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I truly don't know enough about the source to provide an informed opinion. From what I've seen, the source was discussed first here, citing it an SPS, which does seem to line up with what is written on the website's Wiki article. It was then listed here as a potentially unreliable source but with no justification or discussion. I think the concern is that since the website is basically run by a single person, it does not have editorial oversight and thus no one is determining whether or not the content is accurate or independent from promotion. Per this source, he was informed that his content sway box office figures, making it a major source, but not necessarily reliable. BOVINEBOY2008 11:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Idlebrain is good source for the information which I've listed above which is more or less WP:PRIMARY and I don't think there are any instances of the website publishing fake information in over two decades of its operation. Because every film review is a statement of opinion, I believe Idlebrain can be mentioned per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Responding

Hoping to get a second opinion here regarding the acceptability of using GitHub, a forum post, several blogs, etc. for an “Issues” section. Any input is appreciated. Alisafetic (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

US Government Website (FCC)

There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:LTE frequency bands#800MHz ESMR as to whether the Federal Communications Commission's website (fcc.gov) is a reliable source when it comes to the naming of wireless frequency bands. The FCC describes band 26 as "800MHz SMR", but other editors disagree that the FCC is a reliable source. The FCC is the government agency responsible for licensing this wireless spectrum to the wireless providers. Is the FCC's website considered a reliable source? Dv42202 (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are we talking about the *name* of the band, or the frequencies it covers? Because the name does not necessarily indicate the latter (as on a practical basis, bands can cover a range that is not strictly listed by the name). There should be no issue with the FCC as a source for the name/description, but the actual specification would need a source that explicitly covers the technical aspects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The name of the band is the disagreement. Currently, the article lists band 26 as "850MHz Extended CLR", but no source or citation was provided for that name. Another user provided sources (including from the FCC), which lists this band as "800MHz SMR", but 3 other editors feel that the FCC is not a reliable source. Dv42202 (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The FCC is perfectly fine to source the name. Since the eCFR also legally defines what the ESMR is I dont have any problem with the FCC as a source. I've done a brief search and I cant find anything reliable for extended cellular - which sounds more like a branding thing than an actual technical name. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. No one has been able to find a reliable source for Extended CLR. If the FCC is considered a reliable source, my feeling is the name should be changed unless a reliable source for E-CLR can be found. So far, none can be found. It appears that the person who originally created the article made up that name, since there are no citations for it anywhere. Dv42202 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dv42202, The FCC is a reliable source for what they might name something, but they are not a source for the idea that no one else uses a given name. For example, 'Extended CLR' appears as a name for that band in "The LTE-Advanced Deployment Handbook: The Planning Guidelines for the Fourth Generation Networks", ISBN 9781118484807, page 115. MrOllie (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, On what basis is that book a reliable source? I've seen websites that got their information from the incorrect Wikipedia article. It wouldn't surprise me if books were also sourcing that information from the Wikipedia chart. No one has been able to find any reference to "E-CLR" from the FCC, or any wireless carrier. Nor do any of them refer to the band as "850MHz". Dv42202 (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dv42202, It is published by Wiley, who are a fairly well respected publisher so far as I know. If you aren't familiar with what makes for a reliable source, you can read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or given the noticeboard we're on I'm sure someone will be along to explain it to you soon. MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, No, I fully understand it. You don't appear to understand that we have already determined that the FCC is a reliable source. Dv42202 (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dv42202, So? It is certainly possible for more than one reliable source to exist. MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie - And they contradict each other, so which is actually correct? You alone get to decide that? Dv42202 (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dv42202, No, you get to go back to the article talk page and work it out with other editors to form a consensus. (P.S., don't write things like 'the name should be changed unless a reliable source for E-CLR can be found' if you don't really want somebody to go look for a source). MrOllie (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie - I am actually not able to read the source you provided without purchasing the book. Maybe it's a reliable source. But no one here will be able to determine that unless they own the book. Dv42202 (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL is applicable here. - MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie - You purchased the book? I doubt it. Dv42202 (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dv42202, I happen to have access to a good library. At this moment I am looking at table 5.1 'FDD frequency bands for LTE', which lists '26 Extended CLR (850)' MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie - What you're telling me is that the FCC, Sprint, Dish, and all media organizations who refer to this spectrum as 800MHz ESMR are all incorrect? Sprint has been incorrectly referring to their own spectrum for decades? You don't see why that's incredulous? Dv42202 (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dv42202, I think we can stop duplicating comments from the article talk page here, don't you? MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Using a Decider.com interview

Hey everyone, I've found some sources that I would like to use to improve the article Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas. One of these is an interview with several crew members by Decider, which is run by the New York Post (link to article). I understand that the Post is considered generally unreliable by WP:RSP, but I've haven't been able to find any indication of the reliability of Decider specifically. Normally, I would just assume I should stay away, but since this is an interview with the involved parties about an uncontroversial topic (the production of the episode), it seems like this article might be reliable enough to warrant inclusion so long as the Wikipedia article only cites information from the interviewees. Thoughts? RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say decider.com falls under WP:TABLOID, I wouldn't use it, it's not listed at WP:RSP. I would of thought it should be listed know, under it's own listing or NY Post. Govvy (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how WP:TABLOID applies; that policy discusses how "Wikipedia is not a newspaper", which pertains more to notability. The topic is notable even without this source. My question pertains to the source's reliability since it quotes the crew members without offering much commentary of its own. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I am saying that I feel decider.com runs rather like a tabloid newspaper. Govvy (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS required for amount of grant money received?

sighs. Questions about these edits:

• diff: Don't see why this is particularly noteworthy. We shouldn't be citing a conspiracy-theory article here anyways.
• diff: Vanity Fair is not a reliable source for scientific information, and we should not be linking to popular magazine articles by non-experts that push fringe scientific views. As for when popular magazines started promoting fringe scientific ideas, this has happened often during the pandemic. Don't add again without consensus.

WP:RSP says: Vanity Fair is considered generally reliable, including for popular culture topics. This RSN discussion established that it's generally reliable for news in general, not just popular culture.

Questions:

1. Since when is a respected investigative journalist of Vanity Fair writing a long investigative piece (which academics find no issue with[77]) a "conspiracy theory article"? Is it a BLP issue to say someone is writing conspiracy theory articles with zero evidence and zero reliable sources cited to support such a statement?
2. Since when is MEDRS required for saying how much funding a person receives from grant-making organisations?
3. Since when is it a bad thing to receive NIH funding? I'd be pretty proud if I had millions in grants from NIH. In fact, the subject lists it in their CV, according to the source: Shi Zhengli herself listed U.S. government grant support of more than $1.2 million on her curriculum vitae. It's not presented as a negative thing in the source at all, because it isn't a negative thing...

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I would agree you do not need MEDRS sources for the amount of grant money received by a person or group. But you also need to have care what you infer. The source says "Shi Zhengli herself listed U.S. government grant support of more than $1.2 million on her curriculum vitae: $665,000 from the NIH between 2014 and 2019; and $559,500 over the same period from USAID.", it does not say what it was for.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Does it matter what it's for? In our article someone just added it to the career section, and in the full context all it said was: Shi is the director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), located in Jiangxia District, Wuhan. In support of her research there, she has received grant funding from U.S. government sources totaling more than US$1.2 million, including $665,000 from the National Institutes of Health from 2014 to 2019, as well as US$559,500 over the same period from USAID. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if we say it was used to fund her research at X (or into X) the source must support that (see wp:v).Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's true. If we remove the In support of her research there then it should be okay? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It would be reliable for the fact she received the money, its inclusion is not a matter for this forum.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Grant information is nothing close to biomedical, and as long as its stating details limited to when, how much, and the broad purpose of that funding, any RS can be used for it. (There are multiple ways to identify grants given out by the US gov't available to the public, it is not like interpretation of biomedical information.

That said, while the facet of receiving grants from gov't sources for funding is its fair to include, looooots of people get grants, and at least how that statement is written does feel a bit promo-ish, given that's its not specifically talking about what those grants were being used for. At least to me, that's a tone issue. But you could write the statement that is in debate "Zhengli's research has included backing from NIH and USAID.", still using VF for the source, without any problem. --Masem (t) 13:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

And separately, just to add on to this, here's a Nature source that is more description to this point [78] [79] and points out a few things are missing in addition: her grants need to be tied to the EcoHealth Alliance as WIV was a subrecipient to them (it comes up later but needs to be mentioned there), and it should be pointed out how these grants were pulled by Trump when the connection was made. So let's put it this way: its not true she received grants *directly* from NIH/USAID, but through EcoHealth Alliance (which I would understand as a researcher on a CV to assert receiving the subaward grants as appearing as direct funding). And the mess around Nov 2020 appears to have more that can be pulled in about Zhengli and her research that may appear in RSes due to the political mess around the funding. --Masem (t) 14:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Funding and politics would not be covered by MEDRS, thats a good use for that source although we should be careful to use a wide variety of sources. Whoever told you that was mistaken, the characterization of it as a "conspiracy-theory article” also appears to be without merit. I think we may have more of an editor conduct issue here than a reliability one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

Is Jewish Virtual Library a reliable source? https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/155.246.151.38 (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

From a quick look, it isn't really a 'source' at all, any more than libraries in general are. It's contents seem to consist of articles etc already published elsewhere, which would have to be assessed individually, in the context of what they were being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Per this RFC, no. It has an entry at WP:RSP. Selfstudier (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this article reliable? I read in the rfc that some articles are reliable sources. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hasidim-and-mitnagdim155.246.151.38 (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Idk. It also says if the article cites sources, those should be used instead. At any rate, I think you need to make the case that it is reliable, most people are just going to assume it isn't unless it is backed up by third party rs.Selfstudier (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks!155.246.151.38 (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Otokonoko (again)

Previously mentioned at: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_339#Otokonoko and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#Yomedan-chii.jp_blog_in_Otokonoko.

At Talk:Otokonoko#Trap_section, it is suggested that the inclusion of 男の娘 (Otokonoko) in the results when searching for "trap"[80] at Jisho.org, an online Japanese to English dictionary, is supportive of inclusion of article text Otokonoko characters are commonly referred to by English-speaking anime and manga fans as "traps". Jisho sources definitions from "JMdict".[81][82]

A review of all used sources at Otokonoko would be appreciated; particularly the Vice source[83] (text & video), which is referenced for the article text Otokonoko (男の娘, "male daughter" or "male girl", also pronounced as otoko no musume) is a Japanese term for men who adopt a culturally feminine gender expression, (one of 3 sources here) and The term <Otokonoko> originated in Japanese manga.

Thanks. - Ryk72 ^talk 11:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the other user in the past linked Otokonoko post. "The appellation 'trap' is WP:BLUE in the anime pop culture sphere and does not require a citation." As any citation is going to be user generated because translation of slang terms is just that. None of the links actually hold up to reliability standard of Wikipedia. This is not a historical event. This is translation of a slang term in another language. SlySneakyFox (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Slang terms are often documented in reliable sources (See: Fuck). But, in cases where no reliable sources can be found for a topic, we don't then use non-reliable sources. And we don't use sources for content which they don't directly support. If no sources used in the article are reliable, and none can be found, the article should not exist & should be sent to AfD.

Editors are welcome to challenge the other sources used; or to nominate the article for deletion; but not to include poorly sourced content.

BLUE is a nice essay; with the contrasting viewpoint at WP:NOTBLUE. But, while BLUE outlines a rationale for unsourced content, it is not an excuse to use non-reliable sources.

At the policy level, WP:V requires that content which has been challenged be verified with reliable sources; the material has been challenged, and therefore requires sources. WP:NPOV requires that the article include aspects of the topic which appear in reliable sources; if this aspect does not appear in reliable sources, it should not appear in the article.

Neither of those policies are optional. But sometimes the sky is grey. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Longer list of proposed sources:

"Japanese with Anime". Japanese with Anime. Retrieved 2021-08-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

"業界用語集 ｜ニューハーフ、女装・男の娘の求人情報で充実の掲載件数のnewmo「ニューモ」". www.new-mo.jp. Retrieved 2021-08-02.

"Japanese Fans Rank Top 5 Anime Traps, "Otokonoko"!". Japanese kawaii idol music culture news | Tokyo Girls Update. Retrieved 2021-08-02.

"19 Best Anime Trap Series That Aren't Hentai - Cinemaholic". The Cinemaholic. 2021-01-03. Retrieved 2021-08-02.

"26 Best Anime Traps Characters". My Otaku World. 2020-02-03. Retrieved 2021-08-02.

Most were previously listed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_339#Otokonoko; there was only one response on the sources, which did not consider them reliable.

Are any of these reliable? If so, do they verify the proposed article content - Otokonoko characters are commonly referred to by English-speaking anime and manga fans as "traps"? - Ryk72 ^talk 14:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

They're as reliable as the rest of the sources in the article. Also, "Fuck" is listed as a profane English word. Reminder that slang at least in the way for trap is the informal version of a formal word. Fuck is not formal to begin with. SlySneakyFox (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The rest of the sources:

Ashcraft, Brian (26 May 2011). "What Is Japan's Fetish This Week? Male Daughters". Kotaku. Retrieved 5 January 2014.

Clegg, Cara (7 June 2014). "Japan slowly begins to openly discuss crossdressing men in heterosexual relationships". SoraNews24. Retrieved 14 March 2018.

"OTOKONOKO : DES GARÇONS TROP MIGNONNES". Vice. 8 August 2013. Retrieved 5 January 2014.

森友, ひい子 (2 June 2014). "「男の娘」「女装子」と呼ばれる人々 "中性化受け入れ"円満な夫婦の鍵 〈週刊朝日〉". AERA dot. (アエラドット) (in Japanese). Retrieved 14 March 2018.

These included. Let's have others get a chance to speak shell we. SlySneakyFox (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Of the first five proposed sources, the first, "Japanese with Anime" is a user-generated content blog, and therefore unreliable. The third, fourth, and fifth are all listicles - #3 sources itself from goo.ne.jp (user votes; unreliable), #4 is a very fancy Wordpess site (blog; unreliable), and #5 is explicitly "My Otaku World is one of the best anime blog for the anime fans Build by an anime fan lets have fun together & lets build the best Anime blog on the internet" (blog; unreliable). #2 is trickier as my Japanese is very rusty, but I don't see any sourcing information for their definitions, and can confirm that some of them are just plain incorrect. Reviewing the rest of the site, I wouldn't call it a reliable source.

Regarding the remaining four sources, #1 is Kotaku, "quite a reputable gaming media source" - this isn't about gaming, but I see no reason not to include it, so long as the content is backed up by other, more reliable sources. #2, SoraNews, is a blog (unreliable). #3, Vice, currently has no consensus as to its reliability (per the perennial sources listing on Wiki). #4 states that it's an excerpt from a Weekly Asahi article, which is itself tied to Asahi Shimbun, which I would call reliable - certainly the most reliable of the bunch thus far.

With the proposed text in mind (Otokonoko characters are commonly referred to by English-speaking anime and manga fans as "traps"), there are no reliable sources given here that link "otokonoko" and "trap", and especially nothing that supports the "commonly referred to" detail. I would also add that "trap" is considered a pejorative, the implication being that a person presenting as one gender 'traps' an unsuspecting other party into sex with them, and we should be very careful of using it in Wikipedia's voice or normalizing it in any way. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Artnet news

Over at Christian Rosa, a SPA is repeatedly removing an artnet news article which alleges that the artist partially forged a painting by another artist, saying that it is "defamatory" and "libellous". ArtNet news has always seemed fine to me for art-world related news, but I would like a second opinion. There is also a follow up story in the same publication. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

ArtNet is pretty respected in the space. Absolutely an RS in its area - David Gerard (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. With a paid staff of editors and reporters to ensure journalistic integrity, this isn't just some self-published vanity-press source. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a pretty explosive story, of course, but on the face of it it looks like what a well-backed story they wrote with caution would look like - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Artnet, despite the silly name, is highly respected and their reporting standards are rigorous. Niche source but generally reliable within that niche. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

nashpia.co.il

Is this a reliable source? I tried the link it did not work.155.246.151.38 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

When I try to go there, my browser gives me a message that the site cannot be reached. There isn't anything there. So the answer is: no it isn't a reliable source, at least the way you spelled the domain name. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I found it spelled that way and it was used as a source in wikipedia. I removed it.155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Test performed according to cheap electric guitars.

I recently added info to this Wikipedia page: Electric guitar . There's a section about construction and there's a statement Cheaper guitars are often made of cheaper woods, such as plywood, pine, or agathis—not true hardwoods—which can affect durability and tone. That statement is absolutely true. No question about it. But electronics are the heart of electric guitars, so I wanted to add a bit of info about the electronics of cheap electric guitars.

I wrote the following to share what I have found out during my 12 years playing the guitar: Electronics of cheap electric guitars are usually durable and solderings are done correctly, but the material and tone quality is lower than with more expensive models.

I backed that info up with a test I made: I bought 5 cheap electric guitars and tested them for a month. I linked to the content I wrote about that test, on the part where electronics are torn down.

Source: https://guitaristnextdoor.com/best-electric-guitar-under-200/#quality-of-the-electronics

I wanted to back up my statement.

All this content has been fact-checked by Tommy Tompkins, an experienced guitar player who has been working with me.

I'm an electrician by vocation and performed test measurements with my professional FLUKE-multimeter. I also checked solderings and took photos to prove that everything is fine. I thought that this would work as a source for Wikipedia too.

And yes, I know that Wikipedia links are Nofollow and don't affect the SEO rankings at all. But that Wikipedia article lacked crucial info, that's why I added it.

Reasons why I think this kind of source is valid and why I added the link to my content in the first place.

1. I checked references for that page (Electric guitar): those included sites like: musicradar.com (self-published blog with ads and affiliate links), lespaulforum.com (well it's a forum), StewMac (content there is self-published by SteweMac which's main goal is to sell guitars and gear). I personally have nothing against these sources (well the forum source is a bit unreliable, but the link is broken anyway). But after looking at these I thought that maybe I'll add something based on my heavy focus on cheap electric guitar this year.

2. I have really performed a test, using legitimate methods. Measuring resistance gives us valuable info about how much copper wire is around magnetic pole pieces. More resistance there is, hotter tones the pickup provides. I checked solderings to see if everything is well-attached and that there are no cold solderings.

But to my amazement, not only the link was removed, but also the statement too. At the same time, the tonewood statement remained(without proof).

I chatted with a moderator of yours. He first stated that all self-published sources are forbidden. I didn't found anything stating that and the actual Electric guitar Wikipedia page and its References speak against this.

After letting him know all this he stated that my site and page has Affiliate links to the products I test. I didn't know that's forbidden. And because you are linking to musicradar.com, I assumed it to be OK.

I performed a legitimate test. I can send a photo of my graduation diploma as an electrician. I know how to use a multimeter. I know how to measure resistance. I know how to check solderings. My content was fact-checked by others. Any book Wikipedia articles refer can be way more inaccurate.

So is there a rule (that's broken a lot) that a blog while it's a legitimate business is not a valid source?

Or is it the affiliate links on the page? I can make a new page without those links to act as a source for my statement.

Or is it the fact that I have affiliate links on my site overall? MusicRadar has these. SteveMaw actually sells guitars. There is a disconnection here.

And I didn't feel that my addition was spam. I did it once on to a page that I have gone through carefully. I'm professional about that subject. I'm professional when it comes to electronics too.

Hopefully, you can clarify the matter.

I want to thank you for your time and for the work you are doing! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GnD2020 (talk • contribs)

We need RS to say it, this site does not look like an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

but can't clarify why you think that similar sites that don't even buy and test guitars and forums are? or why my statement was removed?

Without knowing what sites you refer to I can't say. What I can say is wp:sps is clear blogs can only be used if they are by acknowledged experts in that field. I am unsure whoever Tommy Tompkins is counts as such an acknowledgment. Nor does the use of bad sources justify the use of another bad source, it just means we should remove the other bad sources.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Read the message above...well I can make things easier for you :) here's a quote about those other sources: musicradar.com (self-published blog with ads and affiliate links), lespaulforum.com (well it's a forum). Here's a definition of expert for you (webster): one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject I'm the expert. I open up electric guitars. I measure resistances and check electronics based on the knowledge I've gained when I studied my vocation and during my 12 years with guitars. My site has combined 82 years of guitar experience behind it. https://guitaristnextdoor.com/should-you-even-trust-us-guitaristnextdoor-com-testimonials/

1 of those experts is David Slavkovic, he mainly works as senior editor at https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/ a page that gets over 50million visits each month. He also works with me because experts hangs out with experts. He performs with his own name because he trusts my site. Another expert has taught guitar since high School: DL Shepherd. I have spent this year studying budget electric guitars. And you say that this is not enough? We have the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject, in this case about guitars and all gear related to guitars.

We need RS saying they are an expert, and treating them as such.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Now I doubt musicradar.com is an RS either. lespaulforum.com might be, it would depend on who posts on it (for example if Eric Clapton posts there that would be an RS).Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, MusicRadar may or may not be reliable, but at least it is not self published, it is a product of magazine publisher Future plc. The specific cite that GnD2020 appears to be concerned about looks to be a repost from sister publication/print magazine Total Guitar. - MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Well (OP) there is your answer, it's not an SPS. It's more of a wp:newsblog, which can be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note that I have over 25 years of experience playing, maintaining, repairing and even building guitars, though I'd never consider myself an expert on the subject. I find the OP's claim of 12 years of experience qualifying them as an expert to be rather dubious, and am rather surprised that no-one has yet mentioned that the WP:OR which they have self-published will never be acceptable without being picked up and vetted by an authoritative re-publisher. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Excluding academic sources due to relative infrequency of citations in citation indexes

It is an established principle here - see WP:SCHOLARSHIP - that one criteria of reliability for academic sources is whether or not they and/or the journal in which they have been published have been cited in other reliable academic publications. And that checking citation indexes is one way to determine that. The question I raise here is this: If an academic source has a low citation count - that is, a citation count greater than zero, or perhaps greater than one or two, - is that low count alone a reason to object to the inclusion of that source in an article here?

At Talk:Gini coefficient#Gini index other uses editor Limit-theorem has argued that a particular extension of the Gini coefficient should not be present in the article because the academic sources which support that application have either no or, more important for this question, low citation counts. He says, "Please note that these papers have no impact, the most cited appears to have 9 citations on Google Scholar, the other one has 4. This is not encyclopedia level. As to the 'Parsa, Motahareh, Antonio Di Crescenzo, and Hadi Jabbari Nooghabi. 'Comparison of Systems Ageing Properties by Gini-type Index.' 13th Iranian Statistics Conference. 2016.', it has no citations."

The uncited paper is, of course, of questionable reliability. But does the fact, alone, that others have only 4 or 9 citations make them of "not encyclopedia level"? I can find no Wikipedia policy or guideline that would suggest that such is the case, but perhaps I've just missed it. (Let me note in passing that I'm not advocating for inclusion of the material. There may well be other reasons to exclude (or include) it. I'm just uncertain about using citation count alone, as is being argued there, as a criteria for sufficient reliablity to be included here.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such guideline, either. It's a curious question: balancing WP:DUE against WP:V, but I'm not familiar enough with the state of economics literature to assess whether 4-9 citations is on a "nobody reads this shit," level of obscurity or on a "not the most popular research, but not bad," level. I know that in physics, 4-9 citations would be the former, whereas in New Testament studies it would be closer to the latter. I seem to recall that economics tends to see low citation counts, but I can't be sure enough of that to stand behind it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@MPants at work:, @TransporterMan:, Thank you for raising the question, I have been arguing that for a few months now on different pages, all related to reliability engineering. The field is fairly new and even though I have adapted most of these new papers professionally and have proven their legitimacy, their low number of citations due to the lack of academics in the field caused my edits to be deleted. In that particular case on Talk:Gini_coefficient, the use of the Gini Index was published in two books by highly reputable publishers of scientific literature with peer-review editorial boards, but was described as very very low impact by another user. As a matter of fact, the new use of the Gini index that I added extended the concept of the Gini coefficient from economics to reliability theory and proposed a Gini–type coefficient that helps to assess the degree of aging of non−repairable systems or aging and rejuvenation of repairable systems. As a reliability professional, I adapted this concept in converting the system aging to an index number based on the paper I read. As I mentioned, reliability engineering is fairly new field and not too much present on Wikipedia. Sarouk7 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If it's a new and relatively small field, that would explain the lack of citations. But it also might be an indicator that developments within that field are not notable enough for inclusion here, and in extreme cases, might be a case for arguing that there's some pseudoscience going on (there's usually at least a little pseudoscience going on in new fields, but it usually gets worked out quickly). My advice to you would be to point to this thread and explain that the lack of citations alone is not a compelling argument, and ask for any other reasons to exclude this material.

You may ping me at the discussion if you like, but be warned: I'm known for frequently changing my mind as I learn more details. I'll most likely show up, but whether I'll be on your side or not depends entirely on the quality of the arguments at that thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@MPants at work:, thank you for your support, and I think it's fair for you to change your mind on the subject after the discussion develops. --Sarouk7 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No, because there are many reasons why a paper might be frequently cited. Adam Smith, Marx, Keynes and Milton Friedman are frequently cited because of their contributions to economics, but per WP:AGEMATTERS, their works are probably less accurate than an economics textbook published this year. But the textbook will probably receive few cites. TFD (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you find a secondary source about this method? I think one the main—if not explicit—reason for this content dispute is that you are using the paper by Kaminsky and Krivtsov as a source for the method it describes, i.e. as a primary source [84]. Primary sources are not banned, but they should be used with care, and sometimes the inability to find a secondary source can indicate that the conclusions or methods of the paper are not notable enough to be included in a encyclopedic article. JBchrch talk 13:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Glamour Magazine as a Reliable Source in the Fashion Industry

Could Glamour be considered a reliable source in this industry?

• I would hope so, but fashion magazines live their lives on a lack of space between editorial and advertising - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• It should be. Glamour is one of the oldest fashion magazines in the US, and it's backed by a reputable publisher (Condé Nast). And it has strong editorial control too. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Science reporters

Is it permissible to cite scientific reports which written by journalists or science reporters? If they claim that they write what scientists and specialists say? --Averroes 22 (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

In general, yes, but there are many situations in which doing so may be unadvisable. You must provide details: What are you citing these science reporters to say, what article do you wish to say it in, what is the source of the science reporting, and what are the objections to you doing so?

Without answering those questions, we cannot give you a definitive answer, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• If it relates to medicine, the answer generally “no”… see WP:MEDRS for more. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blueboar and MPants at work: I will cite this report. --Averroes 22 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You still haven't said what you would cite it to say, what article you wish to say it in, and what objections have been raised to doing so. I assume that someone has objected to your edit, otherwise, there's little point in requesting a consensus on the content here.

Also, as Blueboar pointed out: For MEDRS stuff, (which this looks like it might be), a science reporter is not good enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Objection was that science reporters are not experts, so they cannot be cited because they may not have been properly understood what experts mean. --Averroes 22 (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I still need an article and what you plan to say using that source to make a judgement call, but that's certainly a reasonable objection in general. Whether it applies here? I can't say without all the facts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks likely to be Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry & the discussion at Talk:Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry#Last_edits. - Ryk72 ^talk 02:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So from a brief skim there, it looks like this science reporter is being cited to counter primary studies. I don't think this falls under MEDRS, but it certainly doesn't look to be part of a compelling argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see this as a problem of RS so much as DUE. The paper cited in the journal you referenced probably meets RS and could be used instead. However, the issue is how important this opinion is. Science journals often publish stories about views that receive little attention in academic writing. TFD (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

BuzzFeed News source on 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit

Summary

Source: Mimms, Sarah. (July 27, 2021) "Twitter Permanently Suspended Nine Accounts That Had Been Promoting Pro-Trump "Audits" Of The 2020 Election". BuzzFeed News.
Question: Is this source reliable enough to use in the article? Does it comply with Wikipedia rules and guidelines?
Notes:

• Discussion has taken place at Talk:2021 Maricopa_County presidential ballot audit#Various Twitter accounts suspended.
• See WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#BuzzFeed_News for the general consensus about BuzzFeed News.

––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 03:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Key points by SinglePorpoiseAccount

• @Horse Eye's Back: Basically I compared it against the first suggested source in the thread[85] and came to the conclusion that the BuzzFeed News article had more or less the same basic facts regarding the topic, but the article from PNT was worded in a fairly neutral manner, and aside from a few opinionated angles. It's not the source in question but it's what I'm comparing it against. Please also note that to stay consistent we should review the BFN article as it was written at the point the discussion began, it has since been silently edited and there is a risk it will happen again over the coming days.[86]

• The title reads as follows:

  Twitter Suspended Nine Accounts That Had Been Promoting Pro-Trump "Audits" Of The 2020 Election

  Note the framing here; the audits are mentioned with the "Pro-Trump" qualifier, and there are quotation marks around "Audits" as if it wasn't an actual audit. The way I see it both of these points of framing go against WP:PARTISAN in the context of the Wikipedia article, readers who are Trump supporters and/or support the audits will likely read that as an attack on their opinions rather than a statement of fact. This is a problem because as seen on the talk page in general there are multiple readers claiming the Wikipedia article as a whole is biased, therefore we should take extra care to make sure the article sources aren't biased where possible. Furthermore both points are opinions. The audits in question are neither proven to be pro-Trump nor illegitimate, and thus cannot be regarded as statements of fact with sufficient confidence.
• Second paragraph contains the following:

  Among those suspended was the official Twitter account for the ongoing, Republican-led audit in Arizona, which is being overseen by a contractor who has spread false conspiracy theories, including in a recent pro-Trump movie.

  There is an inline link as a source for "false conspiracy theories"[87], but that page itself has some framing issues as the editorial commentary is inline but the rebuttals are collected at the bottom. Nevertheless, they are at least somewhat relevant to the topic of the article, even though the Tweets aren't from any of the aforementioned 9 accounts in question. The "including in a recent pro-Trump movie" part is completely irrelevant though, it's clearly meant to discredit Doug Logan, which according to the wording of that sentence is implied to be "overseeing" the official Twitter account of the Maricopa audit. Also note that the Twitter account isn't mentioned by name and the inline link is broken (even in the current revision as of 2021-08-06 06:34 CET).

These are just two of the points I've used to determine that the BFN article is unsuitable in the context of the Wikipedia article in question. The Maricopa audit is a very controversial subject in general and special care should be taken to make sure one side doesn't feel unfairly treated in the Wikipedia article. It is my understanding that a neutral point of view is extra important in controversial articles, especially while a semi-lock is in place. To that point; I see no reason the BFN article has any advantage over the initially suggested PNT article either. Both support the claim that Twitter accounts related to the audit were banned, and the Wikipedia article doesn't (and perhaps shouldn't at this point in time) go any further than that.

To summarize in a single sentence; I have major concerns with quality, POV, and framing issues in the BFN article, and there is already a more widely supported alternate source (PNT) which is sufficient to support the claim in the Wikipedia article with little to none of the same issues. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Key points by FormalDude

• Here's some of the corroborations that I brought up in support of using the source:

1. Corroborating source (AZ Central) for the statement from the article that the audit is unauthentic.

2. Corroborating source (USA Today) for this portion of the article "the official audit account had spread misinformation about the 2020 election."

3. Corroborating source (NPR) for this portion of the article "The audit accounts are just one way that pro-Trump figures have continued to push the lie that the election was stolen from him."

4. Corroborating source (AZ Central) & (Vice) for the portion of the article regarding Twitter's ban of official audit accounts. Added at 22:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC) by 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk)

5. Corroborating source in general: "Inside Arizona’s election audit, GOP fraud fantasies live on". AP News.

6. Corroborating source in general: "Debunking Trump’s Latest Arizona Election Claims" FactCheck.org.

––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 03:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

New comments

• @SinglePorpoiseAccount: do you think you can sum up the argument you make on the talk page against the use of this source? I’m having a hard time following it and its so long at this point that its easier just to ask. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• @FormalDude: As a source for which article content? - Ryk72 ^talk 03:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  Wanting to use this source in the lede section for "The audit stirred controversy due to extensive previous efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the election and due to assertions of rule violations and irregularities in the conduct of the count, leading to claims that the audit is essentially a disinformation campaign." ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 03:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This was not the use discussed on the talk page. This is another use which is already sourced from two other sources. The use discussed on the talk page was the topic "Various Twitter accounts suspended" and possibly extended to "Although it may still warrant mentioning that Twitter has called out the Arizona state legislature for essentially lying on their platform." (no clear draft exists). SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

We also discussed my edit that you reverted which put the source in the lede section for use that I mentioned above. I also think the source should be used for the topic "Various twitter accounts suspended". ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 05:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The source was not used in the lede section prior to the discussion of it as a suitable source was initiated on the talk page. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: per WP:RSP, BuzzFeed News (as distinct from BuzzFeed) is currently a green-light source with some recent notes of caution due to a reduced newsroom. To the extent that the source is merely reflecting the consensus of content from other reliable sources, I would not consider it either impermissible or indispensible as a source for the point raised. BD2412 T 04:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• @SinglePorpoiseAccount: BuzzFeed is making the claim that the audit was not made or done in a way that reflects tradition or faithfully resembles an original, that it is unauthentic. They make no claims about its legitimacy; their claims are about the manner in which the Arizona Senate has gone about this audit.

The audit is proven to be pro-Trump: "Groups connected to prominent supporters of former President Donald Trump’s movement to cast doubt on the 2020 election results have raised $5.7 million for Arizona Republicans’ election audit" per AP News. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 05:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

BuzzFeed News isn't making that claim in the title at all, they just put it in quotation marks. AP reporting that the audit is pro-Trump doesn't constitute proof; AP is the officially selected partner for verifying election results. Since the audit is investigating the same election results, AP has a demonstrable conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results, after they have previously stated the results are verified. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That is the main claim BuzzFeed makes throughout the article. One can conclude after reading the article that the intent behind the quotations for "audit" in the title was because:

1. Professional auditors do not consider it to be an audit (AZ Central)

2. It dose not resemble previous audits or what an audit is supposed to be (Basically all of the RSs) ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 05:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

1. Some professional auditors do not consider it to be an audit. AZ Central picked a few to question and they may or may not be a representative selection of professional auditors.

2. It does not resemble previous audits in a lot of ways, one of which is digital forensics.

3. The nature of the way BuzzFeed News discredits the audits isn't actually relevant to the issue at hand; which is that 9 Twitter accounts related to them were banned and BuzzFeed News is discrediting the audits themselves in the article about the bans. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Good Christ, you're impossible. I don't care anymore. I'll leave it up to whatever other editors decide here. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 05:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I do not believe that we have any precedent that would disallow use of AP as a source merely because AP played a role in "verifying election results". Certainly there were not AP personnel counting ballots or directly supervising the initial election work of the Maricopa County Board of Elections. While AP was cited by many news organizations in its report of the outcomes, that is still just reporting the news. We have no standard for excluding a news organization from reporting a later development because they also reported earlier developments in the same matter. Furthermore, AP specifically routinely issues corrections when its original reporting contains errors, so it can not be said that they are biased towards upholding previous reporting when it is inaccurate. BD2412 T 06:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this a reply to a subcomment above? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It is a reply to the general notion that AP is not a reliable source for this topic. BD2412 T 21:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding what I said; the AP is the selected partner for verifying the election result and as such has a conflict of interest in reporting the election results were definitely right but then report they were potentially wrong. AP is pretty big and I see no reason to exclude them altogether, but if they call the audits pro-Trump then I'd take that statement with a grain of salt. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• BuzzFeed News is a generally reliable WP:NEWSORG. It would take remarkable circumstances to claim it was not one, particularly with the corroborating coverage. This issue seems querulous - David Gerard (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Please keep in mind this isn't about BuzzFeed News as a source in general, it's about this particular article. The supposedly corroborating sources listed above by FormalDude do not mention the Twitter account bans. Many (but not all of) the sources I've seen covering the Twitter bans are themselves using BuzzFeed as a source for those facts alone (list of Twitter accounts and statement from Twitter) but generally do not share the same POV and framing, see the PNT article. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• BuzzFeed News is a generally reliable source, and I see nothing in the text of the article itself that would lead me to believe that this particular article has any problems with it. --Jayron32 12:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Just piling on here to say that BFN is a reliable sources as has been discussed numerous times at this very board, and I find the notion that AP is anything less than a top-tier source to be so remarkably bizarre as to suggest that the person making that implication is not doing so in good faith. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @David Gerard and Jayron32: Any opinions on the assertion that AP has a "conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results"? BD2412 T 22:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I would say that is not just wrong, but conspiracy-theorist thinking from the editor asserting it, and good evidence that their opinions on sourcing should be presumed wrong and their edits should be examined. (Though I'm not going to personally get around to that last one.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I find the assertion laughable. The AP reports election results, as do MANY news organizations. The fact that they report election results does NOT mean they have a "conflict of interest" in later reporting on the same election. That makes no sense. Participants in the election would have a conflict of interest. The AP is a news organization, one of the most respected in the US, and is widely trusted around the world for its accuracy, its prudence, and its neutrality. --Jayron32 12:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I think you're losing track of what this issue is about. It's about a single BFN article. Not BFN in general, not AP, and certainly not about me. To me this is starting to look more like a witch hunt to get rid of the question. If you want me gone then fine, take it up in the appropriate forum, but this is not the place for it. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

        I am confident everyone responding understands what the issue is about. Here's an explicit link from the general to the specific: since BFN is reliable, we'll only be convinced this particular article is unreliable if there are major issues. The points you raised are not issues, and if they were, not major ones. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

        I was asked to summarize, and that's what I did. I can go into way more detail as to why there are major issues with this particular article if requested. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

        I assume you came with your most persuasive points. I am not eager to hear more. Are you willing to accept consensus on this issue? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        I only summarized the points mentioned on the talk page because I thought it was going to be enough to initiate the discussion. I will of course accept whichever end result we reach, but I don't quite thing we're there yet as there are still more threads to resolve. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        The single BFE article is encompassed within our judgement of BFN in general.

        This is how we know what's reliable. Your method above of scrutinizing the source to pick out which parts you think are biased and which parts aren't is just WP:OR with extra steps. We look at the circumstances and history of a source; we look at their editorial control, their topical focus, how they handle mistakes, their fact-checking, how widely-cited by other reliable sources they are, what the credentials of the authors are and whatever else would speak to their trustworthiness, and then we make a determination whether or not to believe them. We don't analyze the language used by the author to try to take a guess at whether they're biased or not, because we really don't care whether or not they're biased, only whether they're reliable.

        This is how neutrality is achieved. Once we've decided a source is reliable, we accept what that source says, regardless of whether it disagrees with our preconceptions or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        Surely this cannot be true; how can we possibly maintain objectivity if some sources are regarded as publishing unquestionable truths? If a source under WP:RSP were to print "pigs can fly", would we blindly update the Wikipedia article about pigs to add they can fly? Furthermore, WP:YESPOV explicitly states Prefer nonjudgmental language., shouldn't we then prefer the much more neutrally worded PNT article over the BFN article? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        At this point you're having a WP:1AM experience. The answer to your question in this particular case is "no, AP's reporting is fine and you're wrong." You're now trying to argue in ridiculous hypotheticals - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        SinglePorpoiseAccount: This is a very long thread so apologies if I missed it but can you explain what is the purpose of us preferring Phoenix New Times over Buzzfeed News? What difference does it make to what we will say in the article? If you could explain this, it may help us or at least me better understand your concerns over that particular Buzzfeed News article. If you can't because there it's not going to affect our coverage and you just want us to use Phoenix New Times instead of Buzzfeed News because you think it's a better source in this instance then sorry but I'm not just not sure this is even worth RSN's time. Source choice can be tricky but Buzzfeed News seems to be well accepted enough that I don't think it worth arguing over it especially not compared to Phoenix New Times. Even if it's true the article itself is better, the counterpoint is since the source lacks the reputation of Buzzfeed News, readers may not trust it as much regardless. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        I'm a bit perplexed by all this talk about AP, it's a separate topic altogether? It's just my opinion that of all sources, AP probably isn't the one to use as proof for the audit being pro-Trump in a heated discussion. Also note the difference between evidence and proof; evidence points towards something being true while proof supports a statement of fact. An AP article can probably serve as evidence of the audits being pro-Trump, but it cannot reasonably serve as standalone proof of it. Take for instance the theory of gravity; we have mountains of evidence for it being true, even in a literal sense, but no respectable scientist will call it proved. We simply cannot definitively prove it from understanding of the underlying mechanisms (yet, which is why we're building increasingly advanced particle accelerators). We can still accept it as true based on the available evidence, but there is still no proof of it being true.

        The "pigs can fly" example was an extreme hypothetical to determine the priority of WP:RSP status or overwhelming evidence. In other words; regardless of what the threshold for overwhelming evidence is, is there a point where evidence and reason takes priority over WP:RSP status or is all questioning of such a source constitute WP:OR in an absolute sense?

        In essence I think a really strong argument for PNT over BFN for the context in question is that the Wikipedia article itself sees very polarized bipartisan traffic. Several IPAs on the talk page has questioned its bias over the past month, and off-site comments about Wikipedia articles like it indicating doing the same trend. Therefore I think it would be best if we avoid feeding into those conspiracy theories by using neutrally worded sources as much as possible. Again, the PNT and BFN article both have more or less the same basic facts about the Twitter bans and should be interchangeable from a factual standpoint (at least in the context of the Twitter bans as BFN covers a broader range of off-topic issues), but they are worlds apart in their apparent bias. If consensus turns out to be to allow the BFN article I would at least ask for it to be put last in the list of sources to the Wikipedia claim. It should be in our own self-interest to appear neutral in our selection of sources. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        @SinglePorpoiseAccount: wait so this discussion isn't even over whether to use PNT or BFN while keeping the content the same, but ultimately ends up being about which one to put first? Sorry but I really really don't think that's a discussion worthy of RSN. Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        It's probably better to explain things from the beginning. An IPA started a new talk page heading about "Various Twitter accounts suspended" and used the PNT article as a source for their claim.[88] Then FormalDude suggested we use the BFN article instead and (at least as I understood it at the time) asked for comments. I provided my comments, I'll paraphrase for brevity but I said it was my opinion that the BFN article had serious issues in neutrality and quality compared to the PNT article. Then there was some back and forth until FormalDude took it here. And here we are. If consensus is reached to use the BFN article over the initially suggested PNT article, I only ask that it would be put last so we don't transfer the apparent bias into the Wikipedia article by having it appear as the dominating source. It would be the only BFN article on the page and AFAIK BFN has a bit of a reputation on run-ins with Republicans, which means the conspiratorially inclined (and there are probably a lot of those surrounding an long-winded audit) would undoubtedly use it against Wikipedia if it appears as the dominating source to any claim in the Wikipedia article. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        @SinglePorpoiseAccount: your gravity example is completely flawed. It is the nature of scientific theories that they can never be proved - Hawking described them as "unprovable but falsifiable". Additionally there is no "theory of gravity" itself. And there is no doubt that gravity is a fact. It can even be measured. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        Yes there is a theory of gravity, there are in fact several.[89] You might also want to read up on Higgs bosons. [90] SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        Look at this point, you're approaching Chewbacca defense levels of misdirection and obfuscation. We've told you the sources in question meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability, at this point your just beating a dead horse and it is growing wearisome. I think we're done here. --Jayron32 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        I can assure you I'm not trying to misdirect or obfuscate, but if I'm being attacked over opinions I don't have I'm going to defend myself. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        Furthermore, "proof" is a matter of semantics here. If you're using "proof" to mean "shown to be unquestionably true for all time", then no explanation of reality is every proven. If (as most people do) take "proof" to mean "consistent with existing observations" then theories are as "proven" as they need to be. --Jayron32 15:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        Sure they can, we can prove things like the Pythagoran theorem or use the more special legal term prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone did or didn't do something. It's not just a matter of semantics, the words evidence and proof are different words for a reason. If you try to equate them then you're just diminishing the nuance if the terms. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        Shockingly, IP accounts complaining about an article doesn't actually mean that the article is bad. XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        Of course not, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore IPAs. See WP:5P4. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        Those same IP accounts were also trying to insert links in the article to tweets by the auditors—not articles about these tweets, mind you, just to the tweets themselves—to counter the criticism of the audit being reported in reliable sources. BD2412 T 22:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        Yeah, and they failed in doing those things because there were more experienced Wikipedians present. But that doesn't disqualify them as real users, nor does it invalidate the whole of their opinions. And that's assuming those aren't VPN IPs, as VPNs are increasingly common. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        I think the fact that you honestly seem to believe that the average person is qualified to diagnose the bias of an author through what amounts to engaging in a post-modernist, subjective literary analysis of their writing, absent even the contextual data that lends a (mostly false) air of credibility to academic post-modernist literary criticism, in support of a POV which is generally held by people who hold post-modernist thought and academia in contempt is really a much bigger problem for you to be dealing with than the fact that this article says stuff you don't agree with.

        One simply cannot maintain any degree of objectivity if their definition of "objective" is entirely dependent upon their own personal inclinations (otherwise known as biases). Here at WP, we look to the most widely respected and demonstrably accurate sources of information, and then yes, we choose to hold everything those sources say about the subject of their expertise to be accurate, especially when other widely respected and demonstrably accurate sources agree with them. On those rare occasions when the preponderance of other widely respected and demonstrably accurate sources disagree, then and only then do we consider a source's claims suspect, and we then remember that we failed to trust them on this issue the next time it comes up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        I usually consider myself fairly good a English for a Swede but that went over my head. Could you please rephrase the first paragraph in simpler terms? It's a little too much for me to properly make sense of when I have to look up so many uncommon words, like what is "academic post-modernist literary criticism" even supposed to mean? One by one, or in pairs, I can make sense of it but all of it together is hopeless.

        To the second paragraph I fear we're getting into meta-levels of definitions. From a pedantic perspective everything is interpreted on some level, like text and words are interpreted to meanings based on existing knowledge of those words, but that's still just being pedantic. If you mean something along the lines of not everyone is qualified to determine what they should think is true, then I find that downright offensive. It's a fundamental principle of a functioning democratic society that one is allowed to form their own opinions and apply new information to their existing knowledge to determine what is true or false. Anything else axiomatically requires authoritarian truth, i.e. the basis of any stable dictatorship. It was my understanding that this is a part of what made Wikipedia "The Free Encyclopedia"; we only publish the facts and opinions which makes up a neutral point of view so that the readers can form their own interpretations and opinions. But hopefully I'm just misunderstanding what you mean. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        Fortunately, we have an encyclopedia near at hand. I would suggest reading articles in the given order: Post-modernism, then Deconstruction (specifically the section on Literary criticism), then understand that you're refocusing at this point, read Literary criticism, and then for context, you can also read Postmodern literature and Criticism of postmodernism.

        After that, I recommend WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:FIXBIAS, WP:YESPOV and WP:RS.

        As to my second paragraph, if you can't understand the sense in it (based as it is in our policies and guidelines), WP:CIR might be a good read. Pay special attention to the second, third and fourth bullet points in the first section. I'd say the first certainly doesn't seem to apply here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

        Yeah those articles didn't really help much with understanding your first paragraph. They're using what I think are field-specific terms, i.e. you'd need to have a certain level of understanding for the field to grasp the terminology. So thanks for the links but I still don't understand what you're trying to tell me. I'd like you to read WP:CIRNOT, because the third point seems to qualify even incorrect punctuation as mid-level English fluency. I understand basic English and I've picked up a lot of advanced terms over the years, including a lot of field-specific terminology regarding mechanics and science, but the articles you linked are simply incomprehensible to me. I don't know how I'm expected to understand them.

        Come on, discussing the suitability of a source on a Wikipedia discussion page can't reasonably constitute original research. But I think I get what you're trying to say; Wikipedia generally only cares about the majority POV in an article. It's a bit flawed when it's such a controversial subject as an election audit, but I'm getting really tired of having to defend myself for trying to maintain Wikipedias reputation of neutrality.

        I have read your second paragraph over and over again, and I think it's starting to sound like "yes, then we add that pigs can fly, unless there are other reliable sources that explicitly say they can't". SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Buzzfeed News is generally reliable, and without clear-cut and truly dramatic evidence that they screwed up in this particular case, that general judgment applies to the specific example here too. Such evidence is lacking. The claim that "AP has a demonstrable conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results" is risible. XOR'easter (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Look, if everyone here wants to take a stab at my comment that a single article from AP doesn't prove anything, can you at least give a clear answer to if FormalDude should use this BFN article over the initially offered PNT article? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• "Why would a Wookiee like Chewbacca would want to live on Endor with the much smaller Ewoks when 'it does not make sense'. He argues that if Chewbacca living on Endor does not make sense—and if even mentioning Chewbacca in the case does not make sense—then the jury must..." discount Buzzfeed as a reliable source. (quotation from Chewbacca defense). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Is this a joke? I'm not trying to discount BFN as a reliable source, I'm asking specifically about this article. Actually, that's not entirely true either; FormalDude initiated this process. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Sigh, it's only now that I realize FormalDude didn't actually ask the same question that started this. An IPA offered the article from PNT, FormalDude offered the article from BFN as a replacement and asked for comments. I responded I thought the BFN article had "several grave quality issues". Some back and forth occurred, FormalDude created this noticeboard heading, and now we're here. The question should probably read "Is this source from BFN better than this source from PNT?". SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  JFC, you need to stop with your logical fallacies. Nobody misunderstood the intent of this RS/N (except maybe you). Every editor here has clearly evaluated the source in the context of the article and the article's other sources. You are grasping at straws, and this is probably the last one left.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 01:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Also, if there are two sources and one is considered by some editors to be "better" than the other, but both are permissible, then we can use both sources. That said, I see no record from which to judge Phoenix New Times to be "better" than BuzzFeed News. If the sole criterion is how harshly they appear to be treating the subject of a specific article, that is no basis for evaluation at all. BD2412 T 01:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

citypopulation.de and worldpopulationreview.com

Are citypopulation.de and worldpopulationreview.com reliable sources? Catchpoke (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

foodnavigator.com

They appear to have some sort of editorial oversight and state they don't publish press releases but rather use them to create stories. Can it be used to prove notability of a business (see Draft:Moving Mountains Foods (company))? —valereee (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Since Food Navigator is a trade rag, my personal sense is that it's not useful to establishing notability (WP:AUD) but is otherwise reliable. Chetsford (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m with Chetsford here, perfectly usable for most things in its niche but for notability purposes they don’t count for much. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Is the International Journal of Molecular Sciences generally a WP:RS for articles related to physical chemistry and adjacent disciplines, including WP:MEDRS when it intersects, with the normal and customary WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:MEDSCI caveats? This a first quartile (5.923 impact factor), Scopus-indexed, peer-reviewed journal. It is published by MDPI which was briefly listed on Beal's list of predatory publishers in 2015 but removed shortly thereafter after further investigation [91]. (Note, the journal was never listed, only MDPI.) It has sometimes been favored by researchers with non-Anglophonic names which, unfortunately, I believe may be the genesis of questions about its reliability despite all evidence pointing this being RS. Chetsford (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC); edited 14:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Which of its papers, for what sort of claims, in what sort of articles? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I've edited the question for clarity. Chetsford (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So, to be clear, in answer to my question, you have no specific citation in mind, no particular edit or content, and no identifiable Wikipedia article in mind when you posed your query? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Chetsford (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

MDPI's troubles as a publisher have persisted well after 2015; having an impact factor and being indexed in Scopus generally suggest that a journal is wiki-notable, but they don't imply that it is reliable. And given the well-documented issues with impact factors, I don't see why having one in the "first quartile" of any population is particularly meaningful for our purposes. Without more details about the topic and the claim in question, it's hard to say more. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not certain six questionable articles for a publishing house that had published more than 50,000 articles in the last 10 years qualifies as something that could be characterized as "troubles". If that's our criterion we could easily eliminate Taylor & Francis, Emerald, and a host of others. Chetsford (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I could name more articles than are listed there, some going well beyond "questionable" into crackpot. But what matters is not the total number or a ratio, it's how those articles call into question the process itself. It's reached the point where I wonder if Entropy, for example, has meaningful peer review at all. XOR'easter (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Considering previous RSN discussions where MDPI was mentioned there seems to be no consensus that it would be reliable, —PaleoNeonate – 01:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Our consensus on MDPI at WP:CITEWATCH is to "evaluate on a case by case basis" which, as I read it, specifically directs us not to dump every journal into a pile on the basis of it having a common publisher and move on, but to spend time critically evaluating aspects of reliability of each individual journal. CITEWATCH specifically suggests several criteria to evaluate the quality of journals, all of which this seems to meet (a) indexed in a reputable bibliographic database (Scopus), (b) established 2000 or prior, (c) not included in Beal's blacklist. Combined with frequent citing of its articles in unambiguously reliable journals (a couple examples from a single IJMS article I chose at random: Cardiology, Neurology, Nutrition, [92] etc.) , I'm having a hard time identifying if we have a rational, objective reason to determine this is unreliable, or if it really is just "it's MDPI"? Chetsford (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, but I'm wary of talk about "objective reasons" when the "objectivity" in question boils down to "this page with a capitalized redirect says so". Setting a cutoff at the year 2000, for example, was a judgment call; relying on that choice of year is relying on somebody else's subjective judgment. Maybe it was a well-informed one, but even so. Handing the decision off to someone else doesn't make the subjective into the objective, it just defers the responsibility. After all, "It's published by MDPI" is an objective fact, and one with a lot less ambiguity than other data (calculating an h-index, for example, depends upon the citation corpus, and what criteria the database builders use for including a text; Google's numbers will differ from Scopus's, because Google scrapes everything). I take the "evaluate on a case by case basis" advice to refer to evaluating each citation, not each journal, since the factors on which we might judge reliability can vary across articles within the same journal. So, without more specifics as to where and how IJMS is to be used, I don't think a call can be made. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• It seems pretty reliable. Abstracted/indexed by Scopus, NCBI, etc. High impact factor, high h-index (a higher h-index for the last five years than the Annals of Internal Medicine, PLOS Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine). A strong editorial board and a strong peer review process. No evidence of predatory behavior. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The journal Capitalism Nature Socialism

Is the journal Capitalism Nature Socialism a reliable and due source? I saw it being used for a book review in this edit by Davide King. Inseparable in my view is the issue of whether it is WP:DUE for criticism of this book.

The journal is openly ideological, being ecosocialist. [93] On their website's About page, they call themselves an online community of red-green activists and state that CNSWeb [Capitalism Nature Socialism web version] is a platform for intellectuals who may be outside or at the margins of academic institutions... This triggered alarm bells for me vis a vis WP:FRINGE.

As far as I know reputable academic journals are not explicitly ideological, even if the researchers who publish therein tend to certain viewpoints based on their studies or otherwise. So what is Wikipedia to do about these sorts of journals that claim to be academic but are openly POV? (Definitely unreliable journals exist, like Homeopathy, so having an academic publisher is not an automatic green light.) I am inclined to think they should be excluded. We do allow WP:BIASEDSOURCES, which comes up often for mainstream media outlets that have bias or for individual papers, but an entire obscure 'academic' journal? Crossroads ^-talk- 22:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

An academic journal that serves a particular community and thus embodies its biases does not sound very different from a news website with an editorial slant, as far as WP:BIASEDSOURCES is concerned. I'd take a journal that wears its editorial mission on its sleeve (We are affiliated with no political party or organised political tendency and are open to diverse views within left ecology/ecological left movements, etc.) over those that try to look staid while having no standards inside (an Entropy or an International Journal of Theoretical Physics). Maybe this is in the "use with in-text attribution" range. It's not clear how distinct "CNSWeb" is from the Taylor & Francis journal; the former intends to expand the aims of the latter and has different licensing policies and submission channels. XOR'easter (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It is reliable because it is published by an academic publisher (Taylor & Francis) and has an editor board of academics.[94] While most academic journals do not openly declare a political orientation, reliability is about factual accuracy. One would expect that the dozens of professors on the editorial board would be able to fact check areas of their expertise. As for DUE, the criticism seems to be representative of a large number of experts. TFD (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree it's reliable as per TFD's reasoning. Chetsford (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

ScienceDaily

Is ScienceDaily a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averroes 22 (talk • contribs)

It's a press release aggregator, so no. Press releases are self-published and tend to exaggerate the claims made in papers and are designed to promote the work. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia just said what I was about to. XOR'easter (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hall, Ian; Bristol University Press

• Hall, Ian. Modi and the Reinvention of Indian Foreign Policy. United Kingdom, Bristol University Press, 2019

Preview available on Google books

Would you consider it reliable source?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Depends. What is it being cited for? Do other sources contradict it? Context matters... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, an editor whose record on Wikipedia seems to be about showing how poor the status of women is in Pakistan, is attempting to show somewhat startlingly that the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi did not abandon his wife as has been widely reported in the international press, that Modi had a "child marriage," forced upon him by his family, and he thus stands absolved of abandonment or desertion. Bookku, in my view, is attempting to rope in Ian Hall in support of his quest. The RFC which Bookku has requested in this matter on Talk:Narendra Modi seems to be going near-unanimously against him. I suspect he is looking to use this paragraph from Hall (p. 64)

Soon after, other points of contention emerged. When Modi was about six, his father had made a preliminary arrangement for his marriage, as was customary at that time and in that community (Verma, 2014, pp. 9-10). By the time he was 13, however, he seems to have begun to protest against the idea of marrying (Mukhopadhyay, 2013, pp. 65-6; Marino, 2014, p. 21). Nevertheless, a ceremony was conducted at some point with Jashodaben, his intended spouse, either when Modi was 13 or 16 (his biographers disagree on the details) (Verma, 2014, p. 10). Another was performed to seal the marriage when Modi was about 17, at which point the couple were meant to live together, with his wife joining his parents’ household. This situation did not last long. Within weeks, he broke with both his spouse and his family. He left home and thereafter did not return, except very briefly, to either his wife or his parents."

In my understanding, Bookku would like to use this paragraph to reason that because Modi was "about 17," the marriage was a "child marriage," a term with much resonance in India, and many tragic tales of young Indian women being abused. India did have a "Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929," which after one amendment in 1949 (after India's independence from Britain) stated that a (heterosexual) marriage was not recognized (and hence a child marriage) if the bride (woman/girl) was below the age of 15 or the groom (male) below the age of 18. Jashodaben Modi, Mr Modi's wife was definitely above the age of 15. Mr Modi's age on the day of marriage is murky. In the RFC, ten editors have voted to support, "Mr Modi was 18 and his wife was 17" or words to that effect and in effect have voted against mentioning "child marriage." The Child Marriage Restraint Act, however, always had the girl in mind, not the boy. Its main concern was pre-puberty girls, often between the ages of 9 and 14, who had been abused in the institution of marriage in Hindu India for centuries. Bookku in my view is engaged in a rear-guard action in the last week of the RFC (which began on July 10 and which is) slated to close next week. Why he is taking a patriarchal stance in the instance of India, given his record of ostensible feminism in Pakistan-related articles, is a bit of a mystery. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not familiar with Ian Hall's work, but I expect that he is a good academic. His book is about foreign policy. His paragraph should be seen as art, not science, in other words, reliable on foreign policy, less reliable on the murky travails of Mr Modi's marriage; Hall has attempted to write a semi-coherent narrative there, given the all too few published books discussing the marriage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If a source states that someone was 'about 17' when something happened, one would generally assume that they are being non-specific for good reasons - almost certainly because they don't have the evidence to be more definitive. So regardless of whether Hall is 'reliable' on this particular matter (he would seem to be for the actual topic of his book) he can't be cited for anything more specific about Modi's age. As for what the article should say on the matter, without looking into it in further detail I'd do better not to offer any opinion beyond pointing out that policy suggests that if reliable sources differ on something they consider to be of significance, Wikipedia should generally say so, rather than trying to decide who is right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources for a statement an IP has been adding at Economics in One Lesson

The book is by Henry Hazlitt and the statement is "However, in 1959 Hazlitt published The Failure of the New Economics, a detailed, chapter-by-chapter critique of John Maynard Keynes' arguments." The IP has now added two sources:

My issue is in part that we shouldn't be saying this in Wikipedia's voice (let alone the "However"). But the sources don't look reliable, being the Mises Institute and the Foundation for Economic Education. The reception section is basically sourced by using quotes from the Mises Institute or its supporters, with one mixed review from a blog by J. Bradford DeLong. Nothing from JSTOR. Four of the reviews in fact link to the Mises Institute which is flagged by the script at User:Headbomb/unreliable as a "generally unreliable source". See this discussion last October.[95]. Note that two of the editors there, Flickotown and Festerhauer, were socks of the same editor, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton/Archive. I'm not surprised, my experience is that these articles seem to be part of a walled garden (in part because there aren't many people who aren't fans of this brand of economics interested in them).

Given the state of the article, from the lead on down, once the sources issue is decided I may go to NPOVN. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Mises and FEE are stupendously biased to the point of crank territory (or "heterodox", as they put it in economics). I would say, delete the claim and those terrible sources - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yea, these overly ideological sources aren't generally great and shouldn't be used without attribution. But someone like Chamberlain should be reliable enough to give an accurate summary of a book. You could instead use this New York Times article, The Labour Law Journal, this Reuters article, or this very brief summary from Foreign Affairs. Here are some additional sources you could use for the reception section for Economics in One Lesson: [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This article seemed unreliable

This article from Haaretz claimed Haredi divorce rates were increasing and claimed its source from the IDI. when looking at its claimed source: Which is apparently the IDI 2016. The IDI makes no claim that Haredi divorce rates are increasing. I am not (yet) saying that Haaretz in general is an unreliable source, but this article in particular needs investigation into its reliability. Can I have more eyes looking into this particular articles reliability?155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Can you specify in which context you or other editors want to use this article? JBchrch talk 21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Full context on Talk Haredi Judaism.

tl;dr There is wikipedia voice which states Haredi divorce rates are increasing. This is sourced to 2017 Haaretz article. It seems that articles from that time on do not make that claim. In fact there appears to be isolated reports of Haredi divorce rate dropping.155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I will not have the time to take a look at this today but other users can take a look at Talk:Haredi Judaism § Divorce section. JBchrch talk 21:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks for taking the time to look it over!155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging IZAK Debresser Pipsally.155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Haredi divorce rates have been climbing steadily for many years. That is a fact. However, this is not mentioned in the source cited above. However, there may be other IDI sources out there that the HaAretz article might have been referring to. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

For example: this article says: "Over the years, we can see a rise in the percentage of single, divorced and widowed among the ultra-Orthodox, from 15% in 2003, to 17% in 2017." Now notice that that is not yet saying that the divorce rate went up (rather the total of singles + divorced + widowed), but it might have been misinterpreted. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

First, per wp:V, statements must be verifiable to a reliable source. The IDI source is from 2018. The Haaretz article was from 2017. Haaretz could not have cited an IDI report from 2018. There was no mention of divorce in the IDI's 2017 report. It seems that the Haaretz article is more unclear as we go on.

Second, the IDI did not claim that Haredi divorce was rising, it explicitly said that the rise from 2003-2018 from 15-17% of single, widowed, divorced may be due to marriage at later ages. We still have no reliable source that claims Haredi divorce is increasing, except for the increasingly unreliable Haaretz article. Thanks for looking into this Debresser, your research is extremely helpful!155.246.151.38 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Divorce rates are rising among Haredim, not sure if anyone knows for sure what the percentages are. Not sure what this discussion is about. IZAK (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is about a sources reliability. Is the given Haaretz article reliable? The Haaretz article claims to have been sourced in the IDI, yet on further investigation, its claimed source seems a doubtful source of its data. Do you believe the given Haaretz article is a reliable source?155.246.151.38 (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Although this is not part of the RSN discussion and belongs on Haredi talkpage, several sources claim that in certain predominantly Haredi cities, divorce rates are dropping. Maybe (feel free to ignore this, as this is just a personal conjecture of a non-expert) this belief that divorce rates are rising is anecdotal? If it is just anecdotal, it does not belong on wikipedia. Thanks for looking into this IZAK!155.246.151.38 (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)