Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458

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

Jacobin

Hello all. I'd be interested in getting Jacobin, [1] added to WP:RSP, just to make it easier when it comes up in the future.

I searched the archives and found an extensive discussion here. It got 22 replies. My attempt to tally the results is 9 generally reliable, 9 "attribute" (marginally reliable I guess), and 3 generally unreliable.

I notice that another left leaning news site, The Intercept, is green in the table, and I consider Jacobin similar to them. A google search for "Jacobin accuracy" turns up the usual media bias fact check type sites. I know you guys don't like those sites, but one rates them "high" accuracy, another rates them 32, which is a "good" rating.

What are your thoughts on adding Jacobin to WP:RSP, and what is your takeaway from the archived discussion on what classification it should receive? It might be more productive to focus on evaluating the consensus of the archived discussion rather than starting all over. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Meh, I would consider them more similar to CounterPunch which is rated yellow. As Neutrality said in the last discussion, I would not rely on this for statements of fact (even when attributed) because it's an opinion journal, and for factual statements there will nearly always be a better source. For statements of opinion, "Jane Doe wrote X in Jacobin" is fine, but agree with the due weight concerns. (t · c) buidhe 08:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes Jacobin is a good source. Generally reliable, attribute opinion. I haven’t had any problems using it as a source. Editors generally accept it in my experience. The quote I used in the previous discussion still holds: “bracingly rigorous and polemical in a really thought-provoking way”. Burrobert (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As for your other question, based on the discussion, I would say there's no consensus that it's generally reliable. (t · c) buidhe 11:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, yeah, I'd say the consensus of the old discussion was probably yellow, "marginally reliable", often opinion, should attribute. In the interest of keeping this discussion focused, I'd like to state a new question.

Whilst Jacobin is without a doubt a primarily a political commentary source, it's factually rigorous. Its pieces are fact-checked, well cited, and well researched. I notice @Buidhe: compares it to CounterPunch. Which, mind you, is also generally factually reliable though far more heavily opinion based. The thing is, unlike CounterPunch Jacobin also does long-form investigative journalism which puts it closer to The Intercept. @Novem Linguae: why is it "marginally reliable"? Whilst it is doubtlessly a partisan on-line magazine, it's factually accurate, the quality of writing is generally quite high, and professional. CNN and MSNBC in today's world are both typically highly biased and increasingly lean toward "Infotainment" style opinion instead of hard reporting. I fail to see why either should be considerably more reliable. Until there's actual evidence of mendacity on the part of the journal it should be regarded as a highly left-biased but factually accurate reliable source. KJS ml343x (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Re the comparisons here: Intercept trades on its reputation for long-term fact-based investigative journalism, and has an editorial team of seasoned investigators too, whereas the Jacobin is primarily an opinion outlet with editors who have no grounding in the world of reporting. I don't see any evidence of professionalism in this area or much investigative work, so I would place it much nearer than Counterpunch, although less prone to conspiracy theories than the latter. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Should we add Jacobin to WP:RSP with an assessment of yellow, "marginally reliable"? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The consensus in the previous discussion appears predominantly to be "partisan magazine, generally reliable for facts, attribute opinion, check for due weight", in other words similar to WP:SPLC. If you want its addition on RSP, it would require either a RfC or at least two significant discussions (see WP:RSPCRITERIA). There is at present one significant discussion, RSP shouldn't be used as an indiscriminate listing of sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this description and this summary of the discussion. In a lot of ways I think a comparison to Reason magazine might be even stronger than the comparison to the SPLC. And yes, I agree that it is premature to list Jacobin. Jlevi (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the yellow classification. While the source is somewhat similar to Reason in that it has a lot of commentary from a given POV, there is a difference in quality. Ad Fontes rates both reliability and bias. Reason is 38.3, 4.1 (reliability, bias)[[2]]. Jacobian is 32.3, -19.9 [[3]]. That puts Reason solidly in the second tier of sources while Jacobian is straddling the fence between second and third tier [[4]]. Springee (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The comparison to Reason is apt. I'd hesitate to use either as sources for factual claims about anything political. If it is used, statements should be attributed in text to the author and Jacobin. There was a Columbia School of Journalism article on Jacobin [5], but unfortunately it's entirely about the business aspect and the novelty of a successful socialist magazine, and has absolutely nothing to say on its accuracy or fact-checking, which is what we care about. Jacobin is very open about their POV, and while bias in sources isn't a deal-breaker, it does raise some red flags. I haven't seen any evidence they're regularly making stuff up, but this is a fairly young publication with an unproven track record and a clear political agenda. It should be used with caution, especially when it comes to political BLPs. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I would also compare with Reason, but I also argued that it was a mistake to rate Reason as generally reliable, for similar reasons. (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Left like Reason is right ie not really that partisan. I think Jacobin is fine. Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with the yellow classification and the sort of language Tayi Arajakate suggests, although it lacks the specialist knowledge and specialist investigative rigour of SPLC. I would say it is most reliable for niche areas that mainstream media might miss (e.g. trade union disputes, left history) and least reliable for controversial US and geopolitical political topics where it should be seen mainly as a source of less noteworthy opinions. As a UK reader, I would add that its UK/Europe articles tend to be ill-informed and fringey. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the past discussions & evidence presented, I'd say Jacobin is generally reliable, as long as it's used with attribution whenever possible. Many other outlets that contain alot of (often unlabeled) commentary & opinion, such as Slate, The Economist, Le Monde diplomatique, & Foreign Policy are considered generally reliable. And the vast majority of such news sources are biased in some noticeable way or another. I also wonder what exactly 'marginally reliable' would entail here, as sources labeled as such, like E! News, Business Insider, and Vice Media are still widely cited (& in some cases, even defended, such as for example Vice on the MGTOW article). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is quickly moving from a review/closing statement of the previous thread into another discussion in its own right. A few questions: 1) Should we open an actual discussion again on Jacobin? It seems some people may have additional thoughts. 2) Should we ask for a formal close of the previous discussion? Jlevi (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If we need two significant discussions, might as well turn this into the second one, no? I would like to know the consensus on Jacobin.Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This looks more like a WT:RSP discussion than an RSN one. It's interesting how we now view an RSP entry as a trophy to demonstrate a source's significance. The whole point of RSP is to document sources with multiple discussions so that editors do not have to read multiple RSN discussions for an overall impression. If there has only been one significant discussion on a source, searching for it in the RSP archives will get all you need. Discussing the reliability for the sake of discussion ... is not very helpful. feminist (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Think it is working in both directions, right or wrong. Absence of an entry is probably being used as indicator of unreliability.Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That sounds so stupid. If only one discussion exists, the consensus on the source is the consensus in that discussion. feminist (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the ins and outs of procedure, Tayi Arajakate said up above If you want its addition on RSP, it would require either a RfC or at least two significant discussions (see WP:RSPCRITERIA). There is at present one significant discussion, RSP shouldn't be used as an indiscriminate listing of sources. So is that right? Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is not that their is a lack of consensus but that if it has only been discussed once then it is likely not being used enough to warrant an RSP entry. I think, however, that it is worth noting certain sources that are rarely discussed but are worth considering for an alternative (but still generally reliable) perspective (Reason/Jacobin) or for very reliable information (eg Reuters has never had a major discussion but still has a glowing RSP). ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The magazine exists to provide a left-wing perspective and to give in depth coverage of stories of interest to the Left. Opinion pieces no matter where published are considered unreliable per New organizations. That makes sense because opinion pieces rely on mainstream media for their facts. It makes more sense to use the original sources. Their original reporting, while reliable, is usually best avoided because we have to establish weight before including in articles. So I wouldn't use their current article about how the 1992 crime bill was developed because it hasn't received sufficient coverage. Where publications such as Jacobin are useful is in coverage of niche areas, such as what left-wing organizations are doing. TFD (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG doesn't just baldly say that opinion pieces are unreliable afaics. I guess what you mean is they are not generally reliable for statements of fact in WP voice, right? I would have thought some opinions count for a lot, depending on whether the giver is good for it or not.Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I hesitate to consider Jacobin "generally reliable" for statements of fact, because the source inappropriately blurs news reporting and opinion. For example, this article entitled Bernie Won Iowa presented "Bernie Sanders won Iowa" as a statement of fact despite the contest being won by Pete Buttigieg. Likewise, this article entitled The Corporate Media’s War Against Bernie Sanders Is Very Real presents the opinion of Jacobin writer Branko Marcetic as fact. feminist (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the first article you mention it states the facts correctly (Bernie won the popular vote - which at the time he did, Bernie was drawing in terms of national delegates - which at the time he was [6], and that Buttigieg was winning in terms of state delegate percentages). Now as a Brit I don't entirely understand what a Caucus is but given that Sanders and Butigiege were drawn on the figure that has a legal impact (delegates) calling him the winner on the grounds that he won the popular vote seems entirely reasonable and honest to me.

In terms of the second story, it is a case of WP:HEADLINES, we never say that headlines are a source regardless of how reliable we feel the newspaper is. I would not be surprised to see stories worded in a similar way in The Economist or another news magazine which we view as reliable. Indeed I would say that news magazines tend to be better than newspapers even if they have occasionally idiosyncratic definitions of 'winning' (such as in Jacobin) or 'coup' (such as in The Economist). ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

See, this shows how Jacobin wilfully misrepresents how the Iowa caucuses work. By interposing their own opinion on how the system should work (popular vote) over how the system actually works (state delegates), the reader is left with a false impression on the state of the race. The article presents "Bernie won Iowa" as fact but then justifies it as the author's opinion. No, that's not how news reporting works.

It's not reasonable to call Bernie a winner based on a metric that does not matter (popular vote); if the perception of a reader unfamiliar with American politics is that popular vote is key, a news article should at least not promote this wrong impression. To use a UK comparison, a party can lose the popular vote yet gain control of the government: just win enough seats in the House of Commons. I would have no issue if this article were presented as a straight opinion piece with the author arguing that Bernie should be treated as the winner instead, but this is not the case here. feminist (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It strikes me as strange that this works by focusing on 'state delegates' as opposed to national delegates. Winning, say the presidency or a majority in The House of Commons in spite of losing the popular vote has meaningful real-world impacts. As does having fewer national delegates in spite of a popular vote victory. State delegates, by contrast, seems to be an arbitrary internal number that reflects neither what people are thinking (the popular vote) or what will actually happen (national delegates). ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I took the title of the first article simply as a hook for a (quite interesting) discussion on the ins and outs of the Iowa system. Admittedly if you are the sort of person that just reads headlines you might be misled but hopefully WP editors are made of better stuff. Fwiw, my personal opinion is we are going to see more of this type of writing in the future, people want opinion/analysis along with their news intake and again, we must trust editors to pick apart the wheat from the chaff.Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES does discard the second one, but the first states Bernie Sanders won Iowa in the article text. Now I don't believe that there is a law or democratic party policy saying "the winner of Iowa is the person with the most state delegates" as such I believe that it is perfectly legitimate to declare someone the winner on the grounds that they drew on the thing that actually matters (national delegates) and won the popular vote as opposed to an arbitrary internal number. ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

How can you read that article and think it's a factual reporting of news? It's not. It's a mixture of some facts, wishful thinking, and a stump speech for Sanders. The 2020 Democratic Iowa Caucus was a mess, and lots of the reporting at the time was muddled and confused, but this article is one of the worst I've seen. At the beginning the author says that Sanders was projected to win more state delegates, which ended up being incorrect. That's fine, projections turn out to be wrong. But she also says that Sanders is tied with Buttigieg in national delegates. She acted as if the preliminary results and projections available at the time were final, even though she was clearly aware at the time of publishing that the count wasn't finalized (Buttigieg ended up winning not only slightly more state delegates, but also 14 of Iowa's pledged national delegates, while Sanders won 12). Saying "I think we should call Sanders the winner because he won the popular vote" is an opinion. Saying "Sanders is tied with Buttigieg in national delegates" is dishonest reporting: a prediction disguised as established fact. And there's nothing on the site informing the reader this is just one person's opinion. Anyone who relied on this reporting would come away less informed about the outcome of the caucus than if they had read nothing at all. The more of their articles I read, the more certain I am that the entire publication should be treated as purely opinion, not a suitable source for factual claims. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The 2 articles presented are not exactly strong cases for ranking Jacobin 'yellow' instead of 'green'...unless of course we start doing the same for other magazine-type outlets which also do not have separate news & opinion sections, like Slate for instance (which is no stranger to controversial material). On the Sanders issue, I can also reference a reputed outlet like The Economist as also having published unlabeled contentious commentary (in the opposite end of the spectrum), but it'd only be one of many examples from 'green'-rated magazines. And I'm not seeing secondary sources on why Jacobin is not 'reliable', I thought Wikipedia policy discouraged people from using primary sources & opinions? Donkey Hot-day (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with it not being reliable for factual claims because of the mixing of fact with opinion, it's not a newspaper. Someone said "partisan magazine, generally reliable for facts, attribute opinion, check for due weight" and that seems about right. Someone wanted this on rsp, I think with this discussion and the previous we should be able to manage that, right? As I said, I think we are seeing more and more of this sort of reporting; seems eventually we will be attributing everything and personally, I don't mind that.Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. You say "I agree with it not being reliable for factual claims", but you want its RSP entry to say "generally reliable for facts"? I am absolutely opposed to that. It's not "generally reliable for facts", because its articles present the authors' arguments and opinions as if they were facts. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I get that you are opposed, I don't agree with you though because mixing facts with opinions is not the same as getting facts wrong. If everyone was agreed, I assume we wouldn't need a second discussion at all, right? Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• I would consider Jacobin yellow due to subject bias. And I honestly would not consider The Intercept green, but yellow as well. Especially when it comes to scientific topics, where it frequently treads the line toward promoting pseudoscience. Particularly on the topic of Genetically modified foods where it has promoted some strongly debunked sources before. Silverseren^C 18:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Silver seren, mind sharing an example of GMO-woo promotion? I see one or two critiques on the site, but their mostly from an economic perspective, rather than a 'scary scary chemicals' perspective. Don't want to derail the Jacobin conversation, but it would be valuable to see some examples of what you're mentioning if possible. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Even so, economics is a social science. And I wouldn't trust any political source on economics - not socialists, not libertarians. Crossroads ^-talk- 08:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yellow Jacobin is obviously a publication that approaches topics from a leftist perspective. I'd consider it "generally reliable for facts", as it's clear, despite them not categorizing articles as such, what is a fact and what is opinion. Moreover, the case studied above is entirely unconvincing that the article is actually stating that Sanders is unambiguously the winner. Despite this, obvious care needs to be taken to ensure that the facts reported don't constitute undue weight, given the obvious leftist POV of the magazine. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

One additional detail that I haven't seen mentioned yet: opinion is much heavier from in-house employees who tend to write more of the breaking-news, politically-charged material. Examples: Luke Savage, David Sirota, and Meagan Day. Still obvious when it's opinion vs. reporting from them. Jlevi (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. It's a pure political commentary and punditry outlet, and as such everything falls under WP:RSOPINION - not suitable for statements of fact. As with any opinion piece, pundit talk show, etc., any facts given, even if accurate, have a high likelihood of being cherry-picked or framed in a misleading way. No reason to use it and not actual news sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 08:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Al Jazeera on Middle Eastern and Jewish issues more generally

Apparently Al Jazeera has falsely reported that Israel opened dams to flood Palestine, and had posted a video which promotes a Holocaust conspiracy theory. Should Al Jazeera be regarded as unreliable more generally for topics relating to the Middle East and the Jews? feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 15:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

All sources make good-faith errors in reporting things, and all sources do have occasional errors in judgement. Perfection is not required, but rather a commitment to truthful reporting. Al Jazeera pulled the video, according to the exact source you provided, which means that they recognized their mistake, and are willing to make corrections for it, a hallmark of a reliable source. --Jayron32 15:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Since Al Jazeera retracted the report I don’t see a big issue here. All sources will be wrong some of the time and all sources are also more likely to be wrong the closer a story drifts to their ideological blindspots. What separates the wheat from the chaff is whether or not an outlet retracts stories and corrects errors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

As others have noted, it is generally reliable not always reliable. Both of these stories were corrected promptly (and in the case of the later the producers suspended). The dam myth was also circulated by AFP, a reputable news wire, and indeed in its article on the subject [7] CAMERA points to another inaccurate article produced by... Haaretz. The Al Jazeera, the AFP, and Haaretz are all RSes. Corrections are indeed generally seen as evidence of reliability. Al Jazeera probably shouldn't be used for Qatar but besides that I see little to no problem with it. ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is clearly partisan source regarding the conflict. It also funded by the government which is not democratically elected so in my view there are similar to Russia Today and other propaganda outlets that funded by government in autocratic regimes --Shrike (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a broad generalization by Shrike. I agree with El komodos drago that even reliable sources sometimes make mistakes. Al-Jazeera should be given credit for promptly withdrawing the story.VR _talk 17:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent,What is wrong with what I said? Its not funded by the goverment?The government is not autocratic? Shrike (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your implication that "sponsored by non-democratic government" = unreliable, "sponsored by democratic government" = reliable. What does that have to do with fact-checking? Trump was democratically elected yet has been accused of making lots of false and misleading statements. The only thing I'd caution with Al-Jazeera is when we're talking about the monarchy of Qatar itself. Other than that, I'd consider them generally reliable including on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They can't be considered any more biased on that topic than newspapers located inside of Israel like Haaretz.VR _talk 15:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

In addition to Vice regent's point, all news sources are owned by somebody, and that somebody is capable of influencing the editorial line and contents of the publication. States, private individuals and private entities have interests which may bias content, and this fact should be taken into account when citing any source at all. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Two retractions/corrections. 1 in 2015 and 1 in 2019. This looks like evidence of reliability, not unreliability. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• The Al Jazeera is unreliable and highly pro-Sunni biased, pro-Arab in the Middle East-related topics and pro-Bosniak in the Balkans topics.--WEBDuB (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Like WEBDuB says, though Al-Jazeera does produce some quality pieces at its core it is "propaganda" or "public diplomacy" of the Qatari government as pointed out by Zainab Abdul-Nabi in a journal article. Like RT, the good pieces of journalism are just a cover to draw viewership for when they want to spin the Qatari narrative. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

RealClear media

Moved from WP:RS/P

I'm wondering about the status of RealClear media, IOW RealClearPolitics (RCP) and RealClearInvestigations (a redirect to RCP). My initial impression is that they are aggregators, but also with own, very biased, content. All I find is this thread opened by User:JzG in November 2019:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#RealClear_media

Valjean (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this use at our conspiracy theory article Russia investigation origins counter-narrative:

Jeanine Pirro, a long-time friend of Trump, described Mueller, FBI Director Christopher Wray (a Trump appointee), former FBI Director James Comey and other current/former FBI officials as a "criminal cabal," saying "There is a cleansing needed in our FBI and Department of Justice—it needs to be cleansed of individuals who should not just be fired, but who need to be taken out in cuffs."

Here we have a combination of types of sources. All content at Wikipedia (other than WP:ABOUTSELF) must come from RS, even to document the most ludicrous pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, etc. If something is not mentioned in RS, it does not have the due weight to be mentioned here. Period. That makes this use of RCP, if it is deemed unreliable, very dubious. The NYTimes and Salon should be enough. -- Valjean (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely Unreliable. Doesn't clearly mark the difference between opinion and news content on the columns it publishes, and the rest is just aggregation (including a number of questionable sources like the Washington Examiner). For instance, "Donald the Dragon Slayer"[8] today is labeled as "Commentary" and not listed in its "Editorials" section. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  What's wrong with labeling an opinion piece as "Commentary"? Commentary literally means "expression of opinion". feminist (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• If we're going to discuss RC's reliability, it should be done at WP:RSN rather than here unless there have been additional threads on the matter already. -- Calidum 19:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree. I'll move this there, so feel free to continue there. -- Valjean (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Generally Reliable--RCP has a very strong editorial board, with many award-winning journalists and writers: [9], and the site has a rigours fact-checking process: [10]. They are most well-known for their robust polling, which is published in numerous high-quality sources: The Guardian, Reuters, CNBC, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal. Likewise, Real Clear Investigations also seems to be referenced by reliable sources such as The Washington Post and NPR. RCP & RCI aggregates from different sources, though they do seem to have their own columnists. News vs. opinion is always clearly marked. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • While it's an interesting offering, the RCP Fact Check Review is a review of fact checks done by other organisations. The existence of this review doesn't add a lot of credibility to their own content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Judge by WP:RSOPINION. RCP is mainly known as an American conservative-leaning news and poll aggregator. It is mainly used on Wikipedia for its election predictions, the same way we use the Daily Kos (RSP entry) for its election predictions despite its unreliability. It also sees some use for its opinion pieces, which is usually appropriate depending on the identity of the opinion piece's author. Overall I don't think RCP publishes much straight news, if at all, so I would treat it as similar to Reason (RSP entry), The Spectator (RSP entry) or The Weekly Standard (RSP entry). feminist (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As for this specific page, it appears to simply include transcripts of a video. Authenticity is not in doubt when you can actually listen to the video. But why not just cite Fox News directly? feminist (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - This is primarily an opinion site and partisan aggregator, not a reliable news source. It cannot reasonably be considered a RS. Go4thProsper (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - Original material is not factually reliable, and aggregated material may not be accurately attributed. The Wall Street Journal has reported that RealClearPolitics for two years has been a significant source of links to Russia Today stories, and the provenance of the RT headlines was obscured. While much of the aggregated material may be reliable, it should be cited to the reliable source, not to RealClear. John M Baker (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable They have a gatekeeping process demonstrated by multiple contributors organized in an editorial hierarchy; a physical presence by which they can be held liable for libel; and RS consider them reliable as evidenced by the fact their original reporting has been sourced by Reuters [11], Government Executive [12], Albuquerque Journal [13], CBS News [14], TIME [15], CNN [16] etc., etc. Both the current executive editor and the current White House correspondent are separate recipients [17], [18] of the Aldo Beckman Award for Journalistic Excellence from the White House Correspondents Association which is pretty much the Oscar for White House coverage and its recipient is elected by WHCA member journalists. If RC is not reliable, we need to rethink our standards of reliability.
  That said, stories that are simply aggregated by RCP are not implicitly reliable, opinion / commentary columns are not reliable for anything other than the opinion of the writer per WP:RSOPINION, and extraordinary claims should be credited to the source and not presented in WP's voice regardless of the reliability of the source (at least when reported only by a single source). Chetsford (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable. RealClear Media hosted (and may still host) a secret Facebook page promoting far-right memes and extremist conspiracy theories. This family of websites is mainly opinion pieces and aggregation of pieces published elsewhere. As for their sites that claim to do original reporting, their "RealClearInvestigations" site is backed by right-wing foundations and published an article supposedly revealing the identity of a protected whistleblower—something that reputable/mainstream news organizations chose not to do, because it would endanger the whistleblower and violate anti-retaliation principles. And as the Wall Street Journal reported in Oct. 2020, the aggregator has consistently funneled readers to Russian propaganda, while obscuring the source from browsing readers. All of this points to clear unreliability. Neutrality^talk 19:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The WSJ story you site describes RealClear as "mainstream" and their poll average as "famous." Furthermore, I am unaware of any requirement that an RS refrain from publishing the identity of a whistleblower. For comparison, is the NYT unreliable because they blew a CIA program to catch terrorists via their finances [19]? Obviously that put lives at risk. Meanwhile, the NYT, which routinely advocates for restrictions on oil drilling in the USA, is owned in considerable part by Carlos Slim, who obviously benefits from such restrictions. In sum, you are condemning RealClear for things we appear to accept from other sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable for anything except perhaps its attributed polling averages (which seems to be the only thing it is really well-known for, looking over sources and usage, and which is probably better cited to a WP:SECONDARY source anyway.) Outside of that it is largely noteworthy as an aggregator; and there's no reason we would cite them rather than the sources they aggregate. For the (largely opinion) original stuff they do post, there seems to be little distinction between opinion and fact. More importantly, they have in particular been publishing false material about the 2020 election and surrounding events recently, which is a definite strike against their reliability. Generally speaking I don't think it makes sense to use a handful of passing mentions as an argument for WP:USEBYOTHERS when the NYT just wrote an entire in-depth teardown essentially saying how unreliable it has become. EDIT: I would say that per the NYT source it is particularly unreliable after 2017 because of this: Interviews with current and former Real Clear staff members, along with a review of its coverage and tax filings, point to a shift to the right within the organization in late 2017, when the bulk of its journalists who were responsible for straight-news reporting on Capitol Hill, the White House and national politics were suddenly laid off. The shift to the right would be fine on its own, but firing their reporting team isn't. And that led to the other issues the article identifies - inaccurate coverage of the 2020 election, unsubstantiated or false stories, stories that raise ethical concerns, and so on. None of this sounds like the write-up of a source we could use as an WP:RS; it appears they gutted their news team sometime in 2017 and switched to basically pumping out spin, with increasing disregard for fact-checking or accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable for the reasons explained by John M Baker, Neutrality, and Aquillion. They do seem to be known for polling averages more than anything else, which also leads to a WP:DUE concern; how often is a poll average, of which there are many, actually worth writing about? In that case, we'd be turning to secondary sources anyway, as Aquillion suggested. Less-than-stellar publications are sometimes the ones to "break" a story (because it was leaked to them, or because they were listening to the police scanner, or whatever). When more solid reporting confirms the story and mentions where it first appeared, that doesn't necessarily count in favor of the marginal publication's reliability for our purposes. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Exactly this. The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards extramarital affair, but that doesn't mean the Enquirer is suddenly reliable either, all it means is a stopped clock happened to briefly coincide with the time of day. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • How true. I subscribe to and follow over 4,000 journalists and media sources of all types, including the use of many Google Alerts, so I see what is written by the most unreliable of sources. For example, The Daily Caller often has "news" details that is cutting edge (IOW on the wrong side of the knife...), but those details are not yet found elsewhere, so I do not use TDC as a source or even mention those details. I wait until RS pick up the story. TDC will usually frame these interesting details in a misleading story that misleads its readers, and we shouldn't send readers to such trash. When the details appear in RS, the setting is more neutral and factual, and we can then use those sources as documentation of those interesting details. They now have the needed due weight and proper sourcing. So be patient and wait for RS to cover such stuff. -- Valjean (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable per User:Chetsford. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable, completely, given their track record of demonstrably false claims, fringe opinion pieces and the like. One cannot even call it "reporting" anymore, given the mass layoffs of actual journalists in 2017. Zaathras (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment We have a lot of people declaring "not factually reliable" as an undemonstrated assertion. The standards for RS are the same as our general standards; if RS consider them reliable, they are reliable. We have demonstrated that RS consider RC reliable by the fact that their original reporting is widely, and regularly cited by RS. We have demonstrated that RS consider RC reliable by the fact that their journalists have received some of the most significant awards given by and from the journalistic craft. Unless we have RS widely declaring RC to be unreliable, our individual assessments of RC is irrelevant. So far only one source has been offered which sort-of hints at that; we don't blacklist an entire media outlet because of one false positive - otherwise we'd be non-RS'ing the New York Times over the Caliphate podcast scandal that just broke or Rolling Stone for A Rape on Campus. All other arguments appear to rely on personal analysis. Content analysis is research and personal content analysis is OR. A policy-based argument, supported by sources, has been offered demonstrating reliability. The same has not been offered demonstrating unreliability. Chetsford (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Is this really the standard? Then the assessment should also take into account reporting from the New York Times, which writes that, during the Trump administration, “Real Clear became one of the most prominent platforms for elevating unverified and reckless stories about the president’s political opponents,” and that it ran “stories that most other news outlets, including some that lean conservative, would not touch because the details were unsubstantiated or publication of them would raise ethical concerns.” John M Baker (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, we definitely should take that into account. But taking a report about a source into account is different than giving that report veto power. As I said, above, the ability to find one or two instances of RS questioning a source should not be treated as some gotcha! reason to deprecate a source. If that were all it took, we would have no sources left. Here [20], WIRED reports "News organizations, including The New York Times, have reported the story without trying to get to the bottom of it, or even finding out basic information such as where or when the alleged party took place."; here [21] Rolling Stone is found liable for a demonstrably fake story; here [22] The Intercept writes that the Washington Post published a story about hacking that is "demonstrably false" . In each of these cases, we have far more evidence of RS considering the NYT, Rolling Stone, and WaPo reliable than unreliable. Similarly, as demonstrated in my !vote, the same applies to RCP. Chetsford (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
      • But the New York Times article is not comparable to the claims that the New York Times, Rolling Stone, and Washington Post published individual false stories (not that I think that the linked critiques of the NY Times and the Post are particularly compelling). Rather, the Times has provided an overall assessment of RCP's current reliability, and it has done so in terms that are utterly inconsistent with finding a source to be reliable. That should weigh far more heavily than individual examples where an established reliable source chose to refer to RCP uncritically. Nor do I think that the test of reliability should be the treatment given by reliable sources. If that were the case, we would certainly have to reinstate the Daily Mail, which just in the past few days has been cited by The Independent (Dec. 31, 2020), The Times (London) (Dec. 29, 2020), The Times (London) (Dec. 29, 2020, again), The Sunday Telegraph (Dec. 27, 2020), and the Kansas City Star (Dec. 24, 2020), among others (all examples from NewsBank). The test should be whether a source is in fact reliable, based on reported facts, and not on whether media sources sometimes choose to use it without further examination. John M Baker (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
        • When sources considered reliable mention and provide an analysis of less reliable sources it's often useful to WP to support article content rather than using unreliable sources, but it doesn't mean that we should by extension consider those reliable (which is precisely why an independent interpretation of their claims is useful)... —PaleoNeonate – 00:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Generally discourage - especially if editors must determine the usable material from the obvious propaganda themselves. —PaleoNeonate – 00:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Tibetan Political Review

This discussion is an offshoot of Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism, where Normchou, Esiymbro, and I agreed that the Tibetan Political Review does not appear to be a reliable source. This is disputed by Pasdecomplot on the basis that it has not appeared at RSN yet.

Tibetan Political Review is self-hosted on Google Sites, has no affiliation with any academic publisher, is not listed in major journal indices, has no evidence of academic peer-review, and does not appear to be reviewed or discussed by established RSes (that we could find). It only existed for 7 years and often reads more like a blog than a research journal (e.g. the first article).

As such, it does not qualify under academic and peer-reviewed publications (WP:SOURCE) or reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) and likely falls under has not been vetted by the scholarly community. This is much closer to:

journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
— WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Perhaps someone else could shed further light on the usability of Tibetan Political Review though, or draw a broader consensus on its reliability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC); strike-out editor who didn't comment directly on TPR 02:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Appears to be a collection of opinion pieces? Run by a poet and a couple of lawyers, so definitely not a scholarly journal. They accept unsolicited submissions. Doesn't appear to even have been discussed before. I don't think this can be used for anything other than what they themselves are saying, and since neither the Tibetan Political Review nor the writers appear to be notable, I'm not sure why we'd ever even be quoting/attributing them. At any rate, not an RS for anything other than their own opinions, attributed. —valereee (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• To clarify the dispute, both the independent scholar Warren W Smith and Tibetan Political Review are being challenged at Nyingchi. I propose that the focus of this RSN be broadened to include Smith as an author, as well.
• Tibetan Political Review was founded in June 2010, and its editorial board is comprised of academics and jurists in the U.S and India. These include Nima R.T. Binara, Wangchuk D. Shakabpa, Bhuchung D. Sonam, and Tenzin Wangyal. Their web site was [23] as listed on the Tibetan Political Review page at fr.wikipedia [24], but is presently [25]. Their Wikipedia page doesn't list the editorial board's other professional interests, even if they are published poets.
• It's cited by Courrier International[26] which is published by Le Monde; included in University of Minnesota's Human Rights Library[27] for reliable accounts of conditions in Tibet; listed in Oxford University's Press Oxford Handbooks' Scholarly Research Reviews [28]; cited by Harvard Kennedy School Asian American Policy Review [29] and by Harvard Law School [30]; cited by Tibetan Review[31], and by World Tibet News/Canada Tibet News Network[32] as well as by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for reliable accounts of conditions in Tibet[33]. The list could continue, but might be seen as "bludgeoning" the issue that Tibetan Political Review is effectively peer reviewed, is cited, and definitely found very reliable by both academic institutions and a governmental agency vetting reports from Tibet, MarkH21 and Esiymbro and Normchou.
• Warren W Smith has a scholarly piece in Tibetan Political Review, and it's what led to this RSN; a very knowledgeable and respectable piece covering modern history in the region [34]. Any editor with the same knowledge base would agree, regardless of its "hosted" url. That's why it was provided as RS. Amazon's bio says,Warren W. Smith Jr., an independent scholar in Alexandria, Virginia, received his Ph.D in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.[35] Smith's specialty is "Tibetan nationalism, Sino-Tibetan relations and the issue of Tibetan self-determination". Smith also has a page at fr.wiki[36], where it's noted that a critic Barry Sautman is himself criticized in his own page's lead for espousing PRC views[37], as in Ses positions sur le Tibet sont jugées comme étant proches de celles de la République populaire de Chine.
• At Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism it's clear Smith's scholarly views of China's Tourism policies in Tibet as presented in Tibetan Political Review are an issue. And, Tibetan Political Review has also become an issue, although the author and RS's stability dates from 30october, when it was discovered while digging for RS on the Middle Way Approach. My dispute is not about a lack of RSN on these topics, but the effective silencing of a scholar's criticism of policies due to random issues, such as the URL and such as ignoring the academics on the editorial board and the academic institutions which find Tibetan Political Review reliable - including Harvard University, Oxford University, and the University of Minnesota. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• None of these sources seem to establish peer review, and only the Canadian Immigration Board calls it a journal. As valeree points out, the editors are distinctly lacking in qualifications in the relevant fields (between the four list on the about page only 1 has a relevant degree - a BA in Political Science). Warren W Smith may be an SME, but I personally would not call anyone a SME unless they had an English Wikipedia page. While I generally overlook this, in this case the claim is deeply controversial and the post provides no supporting evidence. The fact that it reads like a polemic, not an academic paper (tourism is aimed at turning Tibet into something like a theme park where Chinese can go to indulge their fantasies about primitive Tibetan society doesn't sound like something I'd see in a serious journal) does not help me. ~ El D. (talk to me) 01:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Literally only one of the links of citations (the Oxford Handbooks' Scholarly Research Reviews link) is a published academic review, and even then it isn't reviewing the TPR article itself. The rest is a mix of student publications, a mention that an alum is on the editorial board in an alumni spotlight, raw links on a library page, non-academic Tibetan diaspora journalism, and a Canadian immigration board's response to an information request. If that is all that can be found for the 837 articles published by the TPR then it definitely does not qualify as being vetted by the scholarly community.
  The other editors here also bring up a valid point about the editorial board being self-described as poets, writers, and lawyers without academic affiliations. That's not the kind of editorial board that you find with scholarly journals. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• The points Smith makes about Chinese tourism policies in Tibet are widely shared, by residents throughout Lhasa and visitors to its spiritual sites, at monasteries, and are found as related to the demolitions and forced displacement of nuns and monks at Larung Gar and Yarchen Gar. Other sources go further to state tourism policies in Tibet are used as a form of ongoing cultural genocide. Smith's informed and pithy statements are supported by Tsering Woeser and many others, as I've learned while editing. It's rather shocking, certainly, but the information is a proven reliable account of current conditions in Tibet, by an academic specialist. Thus, it is something you'd find in an academic journal, and it appears long overdue in being cited widely.
• Smith has a page in French Wikipedia, and is cited in several French media outlets - additional diffs can be provided. El D's opinion about English wiki pages for authors is an opinion not supported by RS. Additionally, El D also happens to find Chinese state-run Xinhua accurate in a current RSN [38] yet has issues with Tibetan Political Review? Xinhua's reporting in 2008 alone revealed it as a complete disinformation outlet.
• Another editor opines views, picked up by MarkH21, but those views aren't supported by diffs. My source says the board has academics. Is there a list of board members and their professional affiliations for each academic RS, or even for each RS that can be used for comparison? Probably not.
• The highly prestigious and academically stringent Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Law School citings, characterized as "student publications", indicate that current scholars and future leaders have confidence in the reliability of Tibetan Political Review. Their confidence signifies an academic standard within the student body and professorial body that Tibetan Political Review meets.
• All of which makes the continued dispute on the author and on the journal seem somewhat out of balance with RS standards. I might point out that editors here also support the previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia, in contradiction to those editor's previously stated views on RFA, which can be found in RSN archive 313. What the replacement indicates is RFA is considered more reliable than Tibetan Political Review. (Wording changed per request by Girth Summit)Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

What other sources say about other issues in Tibet are irrelevant. If they back up the claims of the TPR, then use them in the article instead. If they simply claim that Tibetans are undergoing political genocide, then they are irrelevant to the claim that Nyingchi is a "fake village". My statement against it being the sort of thing that would be found in an academic journal was an issue with the wording, not the meaning.

I doubt that student publications can be considered part of the scholarly community. Here is the editorial board of the IJCP (being used above as a source against Xinhua). This is what an editorial board of a scholarly journal should look like. (on the subject of Xinhua, I do not believe my views on Xinhua are relevant. If you would like to dispute them, take them up on the relevant RSN.)

My request for an English language Wikipedia page is my personal interpretation of WP:SPS. I am happy to give a lot of leeway on it for non-controversial claims, but this one is clearly quite controversial. If the TPR is reliable, then it is clearly not needed. But if it isn't then I would like, on controversial issues like this, the involved source to have a Wikipedia page demonstrating their notability. ~ El D. (talk to me) 12:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

IJCP is a completely different source. We're not saying all academic journals need boards comparable to IJCP. The issue is reliability, as evidenced by academic usage, review, and academic credentials of those involved.

The "personal interpretation" for pages is noted, but is not RS policy from my understanding.

[]Harvard Law#Rankings|Harvard Law]] and Harvard Kennedy School are considered part of the US, and the world's, scholarly community.Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The rankings and reputations of the schools at Harvard are not relevant here. A Harvard Law School alumni bulletin that says that someone is on the editorial board of the Tibetan Political Review and a Harvard Kennedy School student publication that cites the Tibetan Political Review once do not tie the reliability of the Tibetan Political Review to the reputation of Harvard as a whole. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Pasdecomplot: Your assertion that people in Tibet share Smith's views does nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that he is a subject-matter expert or a reliable source. If his view is repeated by reliable sources, then use those reliable sources. Whether someone has an article on some version of Wikipedia doesn't demonstrate that they are a subject-matter expert.

The article you describe as from the Harvard Kennedy School describes itself as A Harvard Kennedy School Student Publication. Student publications are not established RSes regardless of the home institution, just as masters theses and doctoral theses-in-progress are not considered RSes per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The article that you describe as a citation from the Harvard Law School is literally an Alumni Focus bulletin that only mentions the Tibetan Political Review once: says Tenzin Wangyal, a Boston lawyer and member of the editorial board of the Tibetan Political Review. That is anything but a citation of the Tibetan Political Review and says literally nothing about its reliability.

The Tibetan Political Review Editorial Team page describes them exactly as Valereee did, e.g. a poet, writer and translator living in New York City, a writer living in Dharamsala, India, He is admitted to practice law in New York and Massachusetts. The fact that they graduated with bachelor's degrees and law degrees from universities does not mean that they are academics.

You're going off-topic by pointing at another editor's views on other sources and suggesting hypocrisy. You're also going off-topic about Radio Free Asia and also make vague references to editors; I did not suggest replacing the text at Nyingchi that was cited to Tibetan Political Review with a citation to Radio Free Asia, nor did anyone else here to my knowledge. I only removed the text referenced to Tibetan Political Review because it's not a reliable source, and so far five other editors have agreed with that view except you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no suggestion of hypocracy. The point on RFA is germaine as a comparison, given the current edits at Nyingchi [39] where the text via RFA (as edited by Normchou) remains after several reverts, including a revert earlier today by MarkH21. The point is this RSN demonstrates Tibetan Political Review is included as a reliable source of current accounts in Tibet as versus RFA, which is not seen as a reliable source for the same accounts, and is described as a source that should only be used as an inline source per the RSN. If it wasn't used to replace Tibetan Political Review, I agree it would be off-topic. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

There were two paragraphs; one referenced to the Tibetan Political Review and one referenced to RFA. In this edit, I deleted the paragraph referenced to the Tibetan Political Review and did not replace anything with RFA. There also isn't a single participant in this RSN discussion who said that RFA was unreliable in the archived RSN thread that you refer to. You're misrepresenting the comments of other editors with something that is totally off-topic. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's a text quote about RFA from RSN archive 313 I suggest this section be closed henceforth. Radio Free Asia, which actually purports to be a news agency, can be the subject of the first separate discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC) Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a blocked editor who has not commented at this RSN thread and cannot comment at this RSN thread. That's also not an example of your full claim that editors here also support the previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia. Are you still standing behind it or can you just drop the false claim? — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• The other RSN thread is completely immaterial here; none of those sources were deemed reliable. The most common comments I can find in that thread was that the sources needed to be examined individually rather than as a group, and that the thread was trying to argue about too many sources at once. I'm not sure anyone but PDC even commented on Radio Free Asia there. —valereee (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

To make sure inaccuracies are corrected for the future archive: Here's the text from the closing at Archive 313, Sources should be discussed individually. I may be one of the users who was "canvassed" to this discussion. In any case, I watch this page and would have noticed. I think sources should be taken one by one. WP:USEBYOTHERS may be relevant to some of these. Between the (possibly innocent) canvassing and the joining of eight sources in this discussion, I'd suggest starting over with one or two of the sources in separate discussions. Adoring nanny. So, for the record, the statement above none of those sources were deemed reliable is actually not accurate as per closing, but the discussion does supply other general use guidelines. Another innaccuracy I'm not sure anyone but PDC even commented on Radio Free Asia there was already clarified above, where the only comment on RFA by CarasdhrasAiguo has been provided here, and note the coment was not addressed by the other editors. I only requested the RSN on RFA and other sources, after repeated reverts of those sources by CaradhrasAiguo. Although that editor is not participating in this RSN, their non-summarized revert at Nyingchi of Tibetan Political Review [40]began a series of reverts which then led to this RSN. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

But, to return to the topic and comments: The Harvard Kennedy School AAPR journal cites Smith twice, and Tibetan Political Review once - the same Smith article on the Middle Way Policy previously edited into Nyingchi. The Harvard Law Bulletin quotes Tenzen Wangyal, a Boston lawyer and board member of Tibetan Political Review, in its article on Lobsang Sangay of Central Tibetan Administration and a Harvard Law alumnus. The IRB's citing of Tibetan Political Review in its background on an immigration case signifies their position on its reliability, as indicated by their absence of disagreement to the information. The Oxford Handbooks Online scholarly research reviews and peer reviewed abstract entitledTibetan Buddhist Self-Immolation by Kevin Carrico cites at least four different articles from Tibetan Political Review in its references, which are cited alongside Robert Barnett, Janet Gyatso, Tsering Woeser, Jamyang Norbu, Elliott Sperling and others. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, if you're referring to my comment as "inaccuracies" that you're correcting for future archives (it would be so much easier if you stopped playing this little game of yours and just addressed me directly, but whatever): The text you are quoting is not the closing statement in that discussion. That text is a comment from a single editor, Adoring nanny. It just happened to be the final comment made in that discussion. That does not make it the closing statement. That discussion never received a formal closing. The statement I made is correct: in that thread, which was never formally closed, none of the sources addressed were declared reliable. None were declared to be not-reliable, either. None were declared anything. —valereee (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Berlin's Humboldt University's South Asia Chronicle includes an abstract by M.N.Rajesh, which cites Tibetan Political Review and Smith[41], and Reed University's Anthropology of Global Tibet appears to include Tibetan Political Review on its reading list (included on searches). Author, editor and translator Tenzin Dickie is published by Washington Post Online, edits at Treasury of Lives, and edits at Tibetan Political Review [42]. Woeser as a RS cites Smith [43]. And, here's a Courrier International's reprint of Tibetan Political Review [44]. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, Again, none of these makes Tibetan Political Review a reliable source for anything but their own opinions. They may very well be informed opinions. Academics may very well put them on reading lists and even cite them. None of that creates editorial oversight. And, yes, academic journals and other reliable sources DO provide a list of their editorial hierarchy, that's one of the things we check for when we are assessing a source for reliability: some sort of masthead. —valereee (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee is correct. For TPR's 837 articles, our searches has turned up two citations of TPR articles from any peer-reviewed scholarly publications. That is paltry and worse than several known predatory journals, let alone reputable peer-reviewed sources that have been vetted by the scholarly community (WP:SCHOLARSHIP again). The remaining evidence does not demonstrate much in terms of reliability:

• A Canadian immigration board (IRB) information request citation
• A student publication (AAPR) citation
• A alumni bulletin mentioning that a Harvard alum was on the TPR editorial board
• TPR appearing on reading lists
• Verification that one of the writers on the TPR editorial board (Tenzin Dickyi) is indeed a writer
• The author of a TPR article being cited in a blog post by another writer (Tsering Woeser)
• Being reprinted in a newspaper

It appears that there is no stronger evidence for reliability, and even a couple more additional genuine citations from peer-reviewed academic publications would be too few to really bring this to general RS status. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

{Replying to MarkH21's refractor}

• As WP:SOURCE states, If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources..., but doesn't say they are the only reliable sources. We've established that the board provides professional oversite, and we've established that academic authors in peer reviewed journals cite Tibetan Political Review as in WP:USEBYOTHERS.
• Warren Smith, the author of the article in Tibetan Political Review, is also established as a respected and notable specialist in his field. This adds further reliability to the article that's specifically contested with edits at Nyingchi [45]. He and Tibetan Political Review are properly cited inline, and the quotation's accuracy is reinforced by an excerpt added to the citation:

Historian Warren W. Smith states in his 2015 review of the model villages, included in his "Origins of the Middle Way Policy" for Tibetan Political Review, that tourism is turning Tibet into a theme park, and used Nyingchi's "fake Tibetan 'model villages'" as an example of Chinese "fantasies about primitive Tibetan society".

• To address another aspect of the importance of the author and source, related edits on Nyingchi were also reedited, but based on other RS. Possible related informational aspects with Smith's article is that those RS and sources state Tibetan nuns forced into political re-education centers/camps in Nyingchi have been documented as forced to sing and dance on a stage in Nyingchi. Which might or might not tie into "where Chinese can go to indulge their fantasies" since Nyingchi is a popular tourist destination, only more RS will tell.
• For the record, the published author Woeser is cited by BBC and other first rate news agencies, and her blog is a famous record of Chinese human rights abuses in Tibet, and cited by those agencies.
• Sorry for the repetition, but the IRB (Immigration and Refugee Board) citation is extremely notable as to the reliability of factual information in Tibetan Political Review regarding current conditions in Tibet.
• I've provided at least six individual citations of different articles from academic settings, and there are more for Smith alone, for Smith and Tibetan Political Review together, and for the journal with its other authors. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

References

(ec) MarkH21, I think items reprinted in RS would probably be usable as items from that reliable source (rather than from TPR), but the one PDC has linked to is published by Courrier International as an opinion piece, so again only a reliable source for Tenzin Dorjee's/TPR's opinion, with attribution. —valereee (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: Editor MarkH21 has stated that the edit above describing editorial "support" for RFA is "a false claim". While Esyimbro and Normchou both used RFA as an editing source, MarkH21 did not, but the edit history includes 5 reedits around the RFA source as Tibetan Political Review was being challenged as a source [46]. The interpretation of "support" stemed from WP:SILENCE in this instance where numerous edits and reverts around RFA were being made, but no deletions of RFA occurred. I don't believe a "false claim" was made, although MarkH21 has clearly restated they don't feel SILENCE is applicable. Thus, this note respectfully clarifies MarkH21's position on RFA. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The seriously off-topic edits below should be refractored to the user's talk page. A request has already been made. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

requests re reformatting

Pasdecomplot please stop reformatting my replies. You changed the indent so that it looked like I was replying to a different post than I intended. I have changed it back. I have asked you not to do this many times before, and if you do it again I am going to have to ask someone else to please ask you to stop. Stop now. Do not reformat any of my posts ever again. Please respond. —valereee (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Pasdecomplot I've struck the section of my earlier post that I think you must have been referring to, and I apologize, I do see how that could feel like a personal attack. Now please respond to this one and assure me you understand that I am asking you to never reformat one of my posts again, even in an attempt to be helpful. —valereee (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) PDC, it's not off topic. You were reformatting my replies in this discussion. That makes my request you stop reasonable to include here. If having it visible is going to bother you that much, though, I'll collapse it. —valereee (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• So, it's clear we don't have consensus for TPR to be considered a reliable source (other than for its own opinions, attributed, of course; it's perfectly reliable for that.) But I think we'd need a formal close to declare it not-reliable for anything other than its own opinions, attributed, as that's not as immediately clear. Should we request a formal close? —valereee (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Four editors have participated here, with three calling it not reliable (outside of WP:ABOUTSELF) and one calling it reliable. Another editors (plus a now-blocked editor) also called it not reliable at the original Talk:Nyingchi discussion. The consensus seems pretty clear, but a formal close doesn't hurt. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

    I've requested one. —valereee (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Poreklo

Serbian private genetic portal Poreklo(Порекло) as RS for origin, genetic, history etc information's?

• Портал Порекло основан је 1. фебруара 2012. са идејом да постане свеобухватна база података о пореклу презимена, имена, насеља и становништва у местима Србије, као и на целом простору бивше Југославије. The portal Poreklo was founded on February 1, 2012 with the idea of becoming a comprehensive database on the origin of surnames, names, settlements and populations in places in Serbia, as well as in the entire territory of the former Yugoslavia.[47] Mikola22 (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe surname etymology, but not much else, I would say. (t · c) buidhe 13:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Who edits it, who writes for it, what is is reputation among academics?Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Portal Poreklo osnovala je grupa entuzijasta okupljena u Društvu srpskih rodoslovaca „Poreklo”, sa sedištem u Beogradu. The Poreklo portal was founded by a group of enthusiasts gathered in the Association of Serbian Genealogists "Poreklo", based in Belgrade. [48] Who edits it, writes or whether has reputation among academics, I don't know anything about that. As for reputation among academics I don’t think it exists in the sense that someone use portal Poreklo as source in some scientific work. Mikola22 (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
    • So just another web site, not sure its RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
      • @Slatersteven:There is a list of contributors in impressum part that includes доц. др Душан Кецкаревић- docent in biochemistry and molecular biology at university of Belgrade,др. Ивица Тодоровић- ethnologist, др Бојана Панић- molecular biologist, др Милош Тимотијевић- historian, Борисав Челиковић also a historian and etc., people with PHD and with scientific research behind them. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 24. December 2020 (UTC)
        • and on its about page (and can we please type English translations of names, ect) "Collects and processes scientific, professional, but also lay literature", so it is not only by experts. "Conducts conversations with individuals, who are the guardians and transmitters of folklore", that reads like they carry out and publish their own work (so maybe SPS issue). IN fact they look like a advocacy group. Nor can I see a list of contributors (or any editorial policy).Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Editorial policy is under Statut part of the page [[49]]. Regarding names доц. др Душан Кецкаревић -doc.dr Dusan Keckarevic, др. Ивица Тодоровић - Dr. Ivica Todorovic, др Бојана Панић -Dr. Bojana Panic, др Милош Тимотијевић - Dr. Milos Timotijevic , Борисав Челиковић- Borisav Celikovic. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 24. December 2020 (UTC)

• 1) A number of European portal on genetics are "private", like that means it's something bad or suspicious. 2) They have a number of people with PhD in their ranks and have done the best job when it comes to scale of samples and the general studies of heritage of ethnic groups on the Balkans. Work done by Poreklo is far superior then any other project in former Yugoslavia. 3) Authors associated with Poreklo have published noted books and capital works. For example: [50][51] 3.1) Poreko has also published large studies/books on their main topic of expertise. [52] 3.2) A tool developed by Poreklo members "Nevgen" is used all around the world and it largely contributed to their reputation and funding. [53][54] 4) They have also published online a number of great books on ethnology etc. [55] 5) They work with a number of scientists and NGOs, which is also mentioned here. [56] 6) Most of the articles written by Poreklo members are based on reliable sources and use multiple citations, as any decent study/work should. [57] All in all - quite the RS. Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• 1) Eupedia is also European portal on genetics and it is not RS, see discusion [58] 2) If they have some people with PhD in their ranks it does not mean that portal itself is RS. We cite information's from that portal and not information's from their books which are also located outside portal. Their books are not published by portal Poreklo, in first case it is "Издавачка кућа Прометеј"(The publishing house Prometheus) and second case is book of some associate with not much information about the book or author. 3) Same answer as for 2), also Jovica-Krtinić(main editor of portal Poreklo) author of that "studies/book" is not a scientist, he is from (Milutin Bojić’s Library, Belgrade, Serbia and Society of Serbian Genealogists Poreklo). Tool developed by Poreklo members "Nevgen" is developed by anonymous private person which is also used by some foreign scientists. 4) They(portal) published nothing, they are just one of the media which has and books on their portal that also exist and elsewhere. 5) They collect raw genetic data from private individuals and this information can be useful for some scientists but that does not mean that the portal itself or information's from that portal are RS. 6) We do not know who edits the texts or what some texts are based on, many texts are written by private individuals also.
• We also have WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:NONFREE issues with this source in rules and conditions of using the Serbian DNA project(genetic results and information's) because "Article 2: It is not allowed to publish results from a Serbian DNA project without obtaining the consent of the Serbian DNA project editorial board", "Article 3: It is not permitted to visualize parts of the project in electronic media (on television and the Internet) without obtaining the consent of the Serbian DNA project editorial board" and "Article 5: It is not allowed to use data from the Serbian DNA project for commercial purposes". [59] "Non-commercial use only" license is not supported on Wikipedia and that's what Article 5 is about.

• Therefore this source is not and cannot be RS. Mikola22 (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• • I have to agree with @Sadko: specially if this is used for a dispute like we have on [[60]] page that unnecessary lasts few days long, in that case site poreklo is equally realible as portal Hrcak.hr in which we have whole different types of contributors some of them are with PHD some of them are without like the author, site poreklo should not be dismissed so easily because it is more reliable than some other sources User:Theonewithreason (talk) 25. December 2020 (UTC)

• Hrčak je centralni portal koji na jednom mjestu okuplja hrvatske znanstvene i stručne časopise koji nude otvoreni pristup svojim radovima(Hrčak is a central portal that brings together Croatian scientific and professional journals that offer open access to their works) while portal Poreklo is some private genetic portal used as RS. Hrcak.hr is not RS he only transfers various sources. Mikola22 (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Which means that every article in Hrcak.hr should be individually looked and valued to see does it present some sort of advocacy or not. And like you written above it is not just presented by scientist there are number of different contributors, therefore it doesn't present more RS than "some" other site. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 25. December 2020 (UTC)

You must not delete information from the article(Josif Pančić) without discussion on talk page or if exist some problem with some source you must discuss it here by opening a new topic. I did not delete the previous two sources, although they had problems. The Croatian source has not had any problems so far and I don't think he will in the future, so please return information to the article. This way of disruptive editing it will only bring you to punishment or block, because we must respect source and information from source. Mikola22 (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It will not block me because a) the source you contributed does not say anything about his origin, b) As we can it has same issues like here discussed source and it doesn't mean that it will not have problems in future specially if it is misused c) It appears there is number of editors disagreeing with you and d) by restoring just one part of information and ignoring some other sources that were not marked as unreliable shows lack of WP:GOODFAITH, my suggestion is that you find international neutral source from well sourced authors, you can restore it to a previous edit from senior editor Slatersteven or you can leave it like @Aeengath: left it until we find more reliable neutral source. You could also cooperate with user Aeengath to reach a consensus.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 25. December 2020 (UTC)

Comparison with Hrčak.hr completely missed the point. A superficial attempt to give some validity to Poreklo.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• It's not a reliable source. If you are using this type of controversial source in a controversial article, it should be a recognized source whose claims to reliability can be verified some place other than their own website. They don't have established reputations for fact-checking and are usually contradicted by equally weighty sources from other, rival nations. We should shut the door on endless disputes about which of these sources we should ban, which is where this is heading - see Sadko's comment: "Work done by Poreklo is far superior then any other project in former Yugoslavia." and Theonewithreason "poreklo should not be dismissed so easily because it is more reliable than some other sources". Unless this work is of broader academic interest and merit, which can be shown by citations in mainstream scholarship, I don't see this project as the platform to emphasize or promote views which may introduce WP:FRINGE ideas. Spudlace (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

That means the same thing goes for internet portal Hrcak.hr same issues, not always written by scientists, if overused could give partisan and one sided view etc. We should not have double standards here User:Theonewithreason (talk) 25. December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, launch an RSN thread about it. But we do not horse trade.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Poreklo falls somewhere in the middle of the RS spectrum. It's published by the Serbian Genealogical Society but many of its contributors aren't academics or experts in the field of genealogy, although quite a few are. As Buidhe noted earlier, it can likely be considered RS for surname etymologies and the like. For concrete claims regarding an individual's or family's ethnic origin (often a contentious topic in the Balkans) stronger sources are needed (WP:V). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

They are an SPS advocacy group with no claims to editorial oversight that self-published work based on "conversations with individuals, who are the guardians and transmitters of folklore", as discussed above by Slatersteven and others. That fails every requirement of WP:RS. For contentious topics, we should cite only stronger sources with an established reputation. Spudlace (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Seemingly most of the members and editors who are writing articles on Poreklo are not educated historians, linguists, geneticists, and so on, but mainly a group of volunteers. For example, one of the authors mentioned by editor Sadko studied the economy while the president and main editor of the society and portal Poreklo, Jovica Krtinić, studied politics. Even if some of them are educated in a scientific field of work, education as such is not enough argument for reliability because we also seek reputation, specialization, and critical reception in scientific articles. I tried reading recent articles with Google Translate. They are obviously using their platform for promoting controversial viewpoints and fringe theories based on some limited genetic information like in this latest article using only selected few scientific references. It is claiming that Zachlumia, Pagania, Travunia and Duklja were Serbian principalities, that most of the scholars believe that Serbs from Zachlumia or Pagania migrated to a region in Italy and due to Michael of Zahumlje origin from a tribe of Litziki from Poland where in today's population was found some genetic match with a sample in Serbia and Italy, it somehow proves the Serbian historical origin and relationship with people and region in Poland and Italy. As can be read in the articles for which provided wikilinks (as well as Kanalites, Bosnia (early medieval polity), White Serbs and White Serbia), it is completely contradicting the general and modern scientific consensus & debate and does not make any sense. Agree with Spudlace, the comments by Serbian editors Sadko and Theonewithreason are biased. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not a Serbian editor ,if you think to label people it should be noted that Filigranski is Croatian editor therefore biased. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 30. December 2020 (UTC)

I'm an Italian citizen, ethnically Italian-Slovene. Sorry if misinterpreted your nationality or ethnicity, but you're mainly editing and engaging in discussion on Serbian topics with an obvious Serbian point of view.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I am just going to say that I am of mixed Yugoslav ethnicity with different citizenship never been in Serbia, about mine point of view same thing can go in your way since it is obvious your are pushing towards Croatian side (a lot), you are not as extreme as other editors here but but you are gaming the system like you did with Trbovich, funny don't see you fighting the same way when some other authors are heavily used i.e Anzulovic (who is even in Croatian history circles discarded) but no matter. I am long enough here to understand how you "play the game" and that administrators here don't give 2 cents about Balkan topics. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 30. December 2020 (UTC)

But just to be clear on one thing I would rather cooperate with you and some other Croatian Users like Oymosby who do understand Wikipedia rules so at least we can discuss, then with some other who are really just here to push it.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 30. December 2020 (UTC)

You're making false accusations about Trbovich. On articles about science we must use reliable sources published by reliable authors who primarily specialized in a relevant scientific field of work. Trbovich studied art, literature, law, and the economy. Barely anything related to history as well as was only paraphrasing historian's Miller's source which was also cited because of which was pointless to use Trbovich's source anymore.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• The portal can be helpful in certain cases, especially for resolving etymological disputes. However, we should be careful with genetic studies. There have been many RSN cases (1, 2). and we should use only recent peer-reviewed journal articles.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Business Insider

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Business Insider?

businessinsider.com  
businessinsider.in  
businessinsider.co.za  
businessinsider.com.au  

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

AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Previous RSN discussion: [61] Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Several other previous discussions listed at WP:RSPSOURCES. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 2. Mainly per this old-ish article in the The New Yorker. It is owned by Axel Springer SE (see [62]), which seems reputable enough to this non-German reader. It looks like a WP:NEWSORG to me—the lead article as of when I'm typing this is bylined, although it doesn't include any quotations not previously published. I'd say this looks like a slightly more questionable WP:HUFFPO. If consensus is not to deprecate, I would suggest flagging at RSP that usage of Business Insider should be attributed, if not avoided. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Axel Springer are the publishers of Bild a notorious german tabloid often compared to the The Sun, and has a questionable reputation for factual accuracy. Of course the same company that owns The Sun also owns The Times which is generally reliable, so I don't necessarily that the reliability of a publication can be determined by its owner if they happen to be a major publishing company. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Axel Springer also owns Die Welt which is solidly reliable. (t · c) buidhe 13:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Solid Option 2 leaning towards Option 3. Started out as a collection of blogs, all the awards it's received have been in blog categories. Known to engage in clickbait tactics and noted by the New Yorker for prioritizing speed over accuracy. Also noted in the current Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources listing, which notes a whopping nine times it's been discussed already, the site does not clearly mark syndicated content and that makes for another reliability issue since such content has to be gauged by the reliability of the original publisher. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Leaning Option 2. It has some good stuff, but some awful churnalised clickbait. I'm reluctant to consider it sufficient to connote notability. I'd certainly attribute at least - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 I'm leaning towards option 3 as well. Maybe some of the content is good and some isn't. I don't think it's reliable enough to use as the only source because of known churnalism and questions about fact-checking. It's not taken seriously at AfD. Spudlace (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, per WP:NEWSORG. Ad Fontes rates their reliability and bias as 43.13 and -0.38.[63] So slightly better than The Economist. Media Bias / Fact Check rates their reporting Very High.[64] ImTheIP (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

  ImTheIP, Thanks, that's very helpful. I'm not familiar with Ad Fontes Media. Do we typically use their ratings as evidence of reliability in other contexts? (Not to say they aren't reliable—I just haven't heard of them before). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

  We don't regard them highly at all. They're not a good media ratings organisation. Neither is MB/FC, which is literally just some guy's blog opinions - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

  David Gerard, IMO Ad Fontes is a very useful tool, and they roughly agree with our own RSNP on many sources. But they're a tool, not evidence of reliability. We don't (and shouldn't) use them as evidence. But as a tool, they're pretty useful. —valereee (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

There are some key cases in which our standards diverge wildly from AF. I'm not going to talk about their 'bias' axis, but their 'reliability' axis is quite different from our conceptions. They take into account headlines and graphics, which in general we consider separately from article content. They also consider 'expression', which they define as (essentially) the % of opinion content in an article vs the % of fact. This is not in itself a bad thing--we prefer to clearly mark opinion content--but it makes using their scoring much less useful for our purposes. I think there are other ways in which our definitions of reliability diverge from their definition of veracity, but this is a fair start. Jlevi (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. Now that I think of it, I don't really see any evidence that they're not reliable. There's clickbait, sure ([65] was at the top of their trending list as of the time I'm writing this), but it's attributed to check-able sources and bylined. It seems comparable in reliability and bias ratings to other reliable sources, per the !vote immediately above, keeping in mind any necessary caveats about the reliability of those sources. Their native advertising is tagged as such (and that article is from 2013). They aggregate and rely on others' reporting, but so does HuffPo, a reliable source. The New Yorker article that concerned me above doesn't actually make any claims of journalistic malpractice. I'm now inclined to view BI as a genuine news organization—buzzy and clickbaity, no doubt, but a news organization nonetheless. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Business Insider's headlines are out there and they've received a lot for criticism for it. "Buzzy and clickbaity" headlines are significant. WP:NEWSORG says to cite the reporting agency too, so why not just cite it to the agency? Editors use all kinds of crazed tactics to push POV into articles. Spudlace (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Spudlace, Citing the agency is of course appropriate when there is an agency, but BI publishes original reporting as well. As for buzzy headlines, HuffPo runs them too (this one is an AP report). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: Two things. First, it seems a bit disingenuous for you to have tried to remove information you didn't like about the source [66] followed by trying to add information you did [67] to the article, seemingly to influence this RFC?

Second, you seem to have ignored or missed the consensus of previous discussions and a key finding as listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which is their failure to clearly mark syndicated content, which makes evaluating content on the reliability of the original source excessively difficult. Aggregation or syndication, clearly marked as such, is one thing; failing to clearly mark it falls into an area of possible source-laundering. I am reminded of another recent case where someone was trying to misrepresent a syndicated Washington Examiner piece full of WP:FRINGE election conspiracy-theory content as "coverage by MSN", which thankfully was easily debunked since MSN clearly marked it and even included the WE header. Imagine instead, the WE piece had been laundered by Business Insider, which doesn't properly mark its syndicated content? IHateAccounts (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, Please WP:AGF with respect to my edits to Business Insider. The first edit was an attempt to remove a POV subsection (calling a section "tabloid clickbait" is clearly POV-laden). The second was an ordinary edit to add information about the source. I am not a shill for BI; rather, I have been convinced of their reliability from information presented in this RfC, which I added to the article to better inform readers.

Second, when you say "syndicated", do you mean sponsored or taken from an agency? If the former, they seem to mark it; if the latter, I don't actually see the evidence that they don't mark syndicated content (WP:RSP says "may not be clearly marked", which is not a definitive statement in the least). If you could point me to a more specific example of their failure to do so, I would be happy to consider it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Btw, here is an example where syndicated content from Reuters is very clearly marked. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 Lots of clickbait churnalism which should generally be considered UNDUE or adds no weight to a view. However occasionally a good story comes out of BI. Springee (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 leaning Option 4 What often happens at RSN is editors engage in individual analysis of sources or apply their own standards for determining reliability. We only have one standard to apply; if RS consider an outlet RS, it's RS; otherwise it's not. There have been such numerous RS that have repeatedly raised questions about the reliability of Business Insider's reporting and its editorial independence that I feel safe in !voting 4. For instance -

• Joining The Daily Mail as one of only two outlets who published a sensationalist and potentially fake headline about leaked documents (reported by PolitiFact [68])
• Giving a corporate advertiser "limited editorial control" over its news content (reported by Columbia Journalism Review [69])
• Allowing reporters to take junkets paid for by sources (reported by the Columbia Journalism Review which described it as a "serious ethical problem" [70])
• Publishing a factually false story about Apple (reported by Ryan Holiday in his book Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator[page 58]),
• Publishing a factually false story about Edward Snowden (reported by The Intercept [71]),
• Requiring its own reporters not to report negatively on the outlet itself (reported by The Daily Beast [72] - journalists at outlets like the BBC and the New York Times regularly cover their own shortcomings)
• A journalistic ethos for dubious "churn 'n burn" style journalism described as creating the potential for "fake news sites frequently trick[ing]" it (reported by the Columbia Journalism Review [73])
• Questionable ethics and journalistic credentials of editorial leadership - including the outlet's editorial head who is serving a lifetime ban from securities trading over fraud allegations (reported by The New Yorker [74])
• "Capricious story assignments" handed out by editorial leadership (reported by CNN [75])
• A scientifically demonstrated tendency [76] to use clickbait headlines,

- and a dozen other examples too numerous to mention. For full disclosure, I have regularly used BI stories in the past to reference content. In light of new learning from this discussion, I will refrain from doing so in the future and seek to replace it where I've added it. Chetsford (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC); edited 08:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I have Holiday's book but I can't find the false Apple story in it. Can you provide some quotes from the book so that I can verify it? ImTheIP (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, page 188. Vexations (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I found it on page 182 in my version of the book. Though I can't see what is "factually incorrect" about it. ImTheIP (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The "potentially fake headline" was A leaked presentation reveals the document US hospitals are using to prepare for a major coronavirus outbreak. It estimates 96 million US coronavirus cases and 480,000 deaths.[77] In February this year, James Lawler presented a forecast of Covid pandemic in the U.S. at a webinar held by the American Hospital Association (AHA). He predicted 480,000 deaths and 96 million infections and encouraged hospitals to "prepare" for an epidemic of that magnitude. PolitiFact rated BI's article false because it wasn't shown that hospitals were actually "preparing" for that.[78] According to PolitiFact, the AHA declined to respond when asked whether they were "preparing" for that or not. ImTheIP (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

PolitiFact rated it "false." I'm not qualified to independently analyze, research or apply qualifications or caveats to PolitiFact's reporting and conclusions. Chetsford (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The article about clickbait, Crowdsourcing a Large Corpus of Clickbait on Twitter, does not claim that BI has a "scientifically demonstrated tendency to use clickbait headlines". The only meaningful statistics presented is figure 4 on page 1506. The figure shows that the publishers with the least amount of clickbait are ABC News and FOX News. The publishers with the most amount of clickbait are Breitbart News, BuzzFeed, Yahoo, Mashable, and Forbes. BI is somewhere in the middle, with about the same amount of clickbait as Washington Post, and Independent. The authors do not state how many headlines there were from each publisher so it is hard to draw any hard and fast conclusions. ImTheIP (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Dunno about reliability, but they shouldn’t be accepted for showing notability. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, leaning 4. Chetsford's sleuthing has convinced me (for those keeping score, I have now !voted every possible !vote in this RfC). The stories about BI in Trust Me, I'm Lying are enough to put me over the edge of considering BI generally unreliable. On the other hand, it is frequently cited by fact checkers ([79], [80], [81], [82], [83]). Those fact checkers may need to update their policies, but I'm not quite ready to discount their reliance on BI. We shouldn't be relying on them, though. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, leaning 3 - as suggested by their use by fact-checkers and the high rating given by Ad Fontes, most of their content appears reliable. However they clearly also have ethical issues and conduct sensationalist reporting and some factually inaccurate reporting. I would suggest treating as something along the lines of the Mirror or the Metro. (note, MB/FC also records this failed fact check). ~ El D. (talk to me) 12:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: I can see no reason to limit use if this source. Examples listed above are not convincing. E.g. the Snowden story was also published by other outlets such as the Wall Street Journal. Business Insider did make a correction to its story. Sensationalist headlines are not relevant to what we do as headlines are not treated as reliable sources for our content. Burrobert (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: I have used this source occasionally, and have never found it to be inaccurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, leaning 3 per Springee and Chetsford. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, while the information provided by Chetsford does give me pause, they are still well-respected by fact-checking organisations, and I find their journalism to be generally solid, if click-baity. They are certainly do not deserve a green tick, but I do not think I would consider them generally unreliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Columbia Journalism Review [84] [85], The New Yorker [86], The Intercept [87], and CNN [88] (h/t Chetsford). We can do better for our readers. There is no information that Business Insider provides that is not provided by some other, better source. There's no reason to use it. Also echoing Chetsford that we only have one standard to apply: if RS consider an outlet RS, it's RS; otherwise it's not. Editors' personal opinions or experience with a source are totally irrelevant. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've opened the CNN link and I'm not sure why it supports Option 3. It does talk about the turnover of staff at BI attributed to the pressure to get more traffic - surely the case at many news outlets today - but how does it support the conclusion that it's unreliable? Alaexis_¿question? 08:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
    • If the first four support the conclusion that it's unreliable, then it doesn't matter if everyone is sure about the fifth. But a source that, as CNN reports, is run by a guy who was banned by the government for fraud, and who is causing journalists to leave by pressuring them to produce more content and get more scoops, at the expense of journalism, is not a source I would want to use to support any statement in any article. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I opened it at random, you will forgive me for doubting the rest as well now. The personality of the owner does not directly affect the reliability, you need to prove that his behaviour somehow made the reporting unreliable. Alaexis_¿question? 21:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
        • I will also forgive you for wasting my time. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
        • It's not the owner (the owner is Axel Springer), it's the head of editorial; that very much and very directly impacts reliability. Chetsford (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for sure, unless BI has gotten significantly worse in the past year. Yes, they're very clickbaity, and yes, there's blog-esque content which is worthless, but that describes quite a lot of media nowadays. As long as non-bloggy work is cited and the usual rule of "completely ignore the headline" is followed (which is good advice even for "respectable" newspapers), they're still potentially usable. SnowFire (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  but that describes quite a lot of media nowadays I agree but that doesn't mean we should lower our standards accordingly. We should just use a lot less news media than we currently do, across the site. News media is good for breaking news, pop culture, and that's about it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 There is a lot of discussion about the clickbaitiness of BI but that is not reason enough to put it into the unreliable categories. The sources Chetsford provides show that it is not a paragon of reliability but it does generally at least pay more than lip service to journalistic standards. It does publish information that it shouldn't and so can't be reasonably considered to be in Option 1 but it does not reach the same level that lumps it into the post-truth nonsense sourcing group that has been deprecated here. The BI is not just an aggregator of other outlets' stories and not everything it publishes is available elsewhere. If a better source for the same information exists, it would be preferred but it should not be rejected out of hand. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 It is not clear that all BI articles are subject to meaningful editorial oversight. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• General note: Business Insider is currently listed as no consensus at WP:RSP. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? The current listing at RSP is "no consensus", with some additional considerations. And you put up this RFC hoping to get that changed to... "unclear, additional considerations apply". This is a giant waste of time. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm doing this in the hopes of getting a clearer consensus on its reliability, because it is frequently used on Wikipedia. You are welcome to contribute to the RfC, instead of disparaging it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with RRC -- this is a giant waste of time. If you don't think it should be used, remove it; if you think it should be used, use it; if other people object, discuss it with them; if the discussion fails to produce a local consensus, then finally there is a purpose to a broader discussion like an RfC. There are an infinite number of sources, it is ridiculous to hold RfCs without concrete need. Please withdraw it. --JBL (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This source has been discussed at RSN numerous times without consensus, and has been used as a source—on high-traffic articles such as Barack Obama and Donald Trump, among many others—more than 12,000 times. Of course, someone else can close it early if it does not attract sufficient attention, but I think there is a need to form a clearer consensus on this source and that's why I've started this RfC. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

JBL, considering that all of your recent contributions to this noticeboard are complaining about RfC's rather than any meaningful additions, maybe you should just unwatch the page like you said you would?. Business Insider is used over 12,000 times making it have a similar number of citations to Fox News, not just some random source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, I think the appropriate place for a personal comment like that would have been my talk-page. This page is not on my watchlist, I ceased participating in the discussion you mention, and I have not left more than one or two comments in any discussion since. The fact of the matter is a lot of people seem to create RfCs here that are totally unnecessary, and this is one of them. Try to complete the following sentence in a way that isn't absurd: "Having this RfC come to the conclusion AP prefers will make the world better in the following way: ...." It is my impression that, once upon a time, discussion on this page was concentrated on the use of particular sources in particular contexts. That was valuable; this is not. --JBL (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I note that they do have a corrections policy.[89] Though it seems to be oriented towards authors making corrections, not readers asking for corrections. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of actual fabrication, that would make it worth serious consideration of deprecation? - David Gerard (talk) 11:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I haven't seen any; it more seems like they are accused of playing "fast and loose" with their reporting, but no indication that they have outright lied. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Although, MediaBiasFactCheck indicates that at least one BI story ([90]) was rated false by FactCheck.org here. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: There now is evidence of at least publishing false stories, if not "fabricating". See Chetsford's comments and my most recent !vote above. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Another source to throw into the mix: https://www.imediaethics.org/business-insider-will-give-anyone-anonymity/, although it's quite old and the relevant policy may have changed. And another, about their native advertising: https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/business_insider_goes_native.php AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

'Sludge' magazine article on Douglas Murray's video for PragerU

In 2018, Sludge magazine ran an article[91] about the video Douglas Murray (author) made for Prager University "The Suicide of Europe", which was published on PragerU's website and on YouTube. Note that the video has 7 million plus videos on PragerU's website and is, by a considerable margin, the most-viewed video when you type "Douglas Murray" into YoutTube's search bar. The Sludge article was highly critical of the video, saying, among other things, that its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation' "evokes the common white nationalist trope of 'white genocide'" says that Murray "energizes white nationalists" and takes issue with some of the specific claims made in the video. Frankly, I believe that this source is being repeatedly removed from Murray's wiki page for ideological rather than evidentiary reasons. Other sources from Middle East Eye, Southern Poverty Law Center and Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative,[92] which aims to document anti-Muslim sentiment, were repeatedly removed from Murray's page with scant justification as well. I've engaged in discussions on Murray's talk page but they've proved fairly fruitless.

A few reasons why I think the Sludge article is a reliable source:

• the credentials of the writer, Alex Kotch, are impressive - he's written for The Guardian, Newsweek, International Business Times, VICE...[93]
• Kotch interviews Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Center of Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League for the article - they're hardly a fringe or marginal group. Check this NPR interview where Pitcavage is described as an expert with decades of experience [94]
• Sludge is a newish source (founded 2018) but their "about" page looks highly professional and is unusually transparent about their funding model [95]. The only current listed members of the Sludge team - it seems like Kotch has moved on - are Donald Shaw [96] and David Moore [97] and both have quite extensive experience in political journalism

Sludge has been addressed in these forums before, in 2018.[98] However, Sludge is now two years old and for the reasons listed, I think it deserves to be treated as a fairly reliable source - and I am just treating as a source of opinion, not looking to speak in Wikipedia's voice.Noteduck (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

A two man band barely seems any better than simply being self-published, regardless of the authors credentials, and therefore should not be used for claims regarding living persons per Wikipedia:BLPSPS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I disagree with the "two-man band" assessment. Sludge may only have two paid employees but they certainly have other contributors - eg see [99] See also that they've had other reporters at different times - under the heading "The Sludge team"[100]. Furthermore, I don't believe they're anything like self-published when they mention that they receive funding from a 501(c)3 non-profit organization called the Participatory Politics Foundation - see again[101] I think if Sludge is to be reject as an unreliable source, it has quite regrettable implications for any small-scale journalism project Noteduck (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Funding seems to be a red herring here. We are talking about whether they are self-published not who funds them. They could be funded by the New York Times, the Washigton Post, CNN, the Guardian, the BBC etc but if all the content was written by Alex Kotch and they were also the one who decided what content to publish, it would still self-published. This doesn't seem to be what happens here or at least that story lists both a writer and an editor, so the question is whether that editorial process is robust enough to allay concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

AS said above it does not seem to really be an SPS, but what is their reputation for accuracy?11:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Given that Sludge has only been around for two years it's not surprising that there have not been many discussions regarding its veracity as a source. I did find this[102] which lists Sludge as having a "left-wing bias" but gives it a higher "factual reporting" rating than, say, The Guardian, so I'm not sure what we can infer from that. However, we can conclude that:

• the story lists both a writer and an editor, so there was some degree of editorial control
• both the writer and editor are highly experienced journalists and not amateurs
• the journalist mentions that he interviewed Mark Pitcavage in his capacity as an expert working for the ADL. Would Pitcavage have lent his name and the ADL's considerable clout to a publication he considered low quality?

IMO, Sludge seems small-scale but fairly intellectually rigorous and reliable. Noteduck (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

As bias is not a reason to reject, but factual reporting is a reason to keep, its an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The two man nature of the source was also raised by Kyohyi in this BLP discussion about Murray [[103]]. If nothing else such a new and limited source shouldn't be given weight as it isn't well established and is being used to make negative, critical claims about a BLP subject. Also, when one reviews the article itself the writing style leans heavily on using appeals to emotion and loaded terms rather than facts and logic. That also says this isn't a good source for controversial claims. Springee (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable, which is not to say it's unreliable. Unlike journalists or academics, Wikipedians can't engage in independent content analysis of a source, its funding, the credentials of its staff, etc., to determine if it's reliable or not; our only modus is to see if reliable sources consider it reliable. A cursory search on Google News of the phrases "according to Sludge" and "Sludge Magazine reported" finds no examples of RS citing Sludge (I did find one example of Sludge being cited in the Daily Hampshire Gazette, but not by the Daily Hampshire Gazette - it was in an op-ed column [104]). As it's only two years old this is probably to be expected and, while it's not reliable now, that's of a qualitatively different value than saying it's unreliable. At some point in the future it may become reliable. Chetsford (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Springee: You'll have to be more specific about what you mean by "appeals to emotion and loaded terms" as distinct from "facts and logic". As I've noted on Murray's discussion page, this must be placed within a worrying context of multiple sources that don't accord with Murray's self-identification as a moderate conservative being removed[105]

@Chetsford: Here's the Sludge video being cited by Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative [106]. This is an academic project with an impressive team credited with writing its articles[107]. The Bridge Initiative is another source that has been repeatedly removed from Douglas Murray's page.Noteduck (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The Georgetown reference is good and, I agree, RS. But a single example of a source being cited by RS is insufficient to demonstrate that source is considered reliable by other reliable sources (plural). If I look hard enough I can find a single example of a RS sourcing Breitbart [108]. I'd typically like to see a potential source be cited by enough RS that it could, itself, pass N if not for the absence of CORPDEPTH. That would usually mean 4-5 recent (i.e. last 12-24 months) examples. That said, I would have no problem using the Bridge Initiative fact sheet in the article directly (assuming it was WP:DUE, of course). Chetsford (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Sludge seems to co-publish and get re-published by multiple other left-leaning news organizations.[109][110][111] Here's another few articles from different sources approvingly citing Sludge[112][113][114][115]

OK, you convinced me. I don't believe Jacobin Magazine is RS. The Salon story seems to be reporting about Sludge, rather than citing Sludge, which isn't a demonstration that it considers Sludge reliable. That said, American Prospect and Politico are, of course, RS, as is Project Censored which CS Indy was syndicating. Combined with the Bridge Initiative citation, that's sufficient to convince me Sludge is RS. Of course, to include something in a BLP it still must surmount WP:DUE and if the material in question only appears in Sludge and nowhere else that may not be sufficient, but that's a discussion that can be had at the article's Talk page, I imagine. Chetsford (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that goes quite to the level of establishing the source is generally reliable, especially when we are using it to say negative things about a BLP subject. I do agree that it didn't establish weight for inclusion regardless. Springee (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: the relevant question is not whether the source is generally reliable but whether the source is reliable in context. The argument in terms of weight is very weak. As I've mentioned in this thread, the video has 7 million plus videos on PragerU's website and is, by a considerable margin, the most-viewed video when you type "Douglas Murray" into YoutTube's search bar. Here is a mention of the video in Media Matters[116] and the LA Times[117] For academic mentions of the video, see Simon Strick, "The Alternative Right, Masculinities, and Ordinary Affect" inRight-Wing Populism and Gender eds. Gabriele Dietze, Julia Roth, p 217 [118], and of course, the Bridge Initiative's page on PragerU[119] Noteduck (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you should ask if this source is DUE in context. Sludge is clearly not a source with a lot of weight. Thus an opinion of this video published by Sludge should not be given weight in this article. If other sources (and Media Matters is not a good one) say this video is significant, fine, use them. I think what you are missing is this is a BLP and thus the standards for including negative content are high. Note that the LA Times article about PragerU only says Murray was featured in a video. It doesn't say the things Sludge says about the video or Murray. Per the recent article talk page post it appears there are a number of academic/academic press articles that talk about Murray so it shouldn't be an issue to find better sources. However, it would probably be best to avoid sources that don't discuss Murray in detail. By that I mean a source that says, "some far right writers such as ... Murray." are generally poor. They are in a sense, mentions in passing. A better case would be a source that says, "Murray is X because they published [this] and [this]." The difference is in the first case the source just tells us something and we have only the author's credentials to back that claim. In the second case the author shows via an explanation why something is the case. We should be doing the same thing in Wikipedia articles. It sounds like there should be sufficient sourcing for this so no reason to use lower quality (either in terms of general quality/weight like Sludge or ones where Murray is secondary to the topic of the article). Springee (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: You've again asserted that Sludge is low quality/weight when this noticeboard discussion has established the opposite. You're setting the evidentiary bar unattainably high. You haven't responded to my points about the high visibility of PragerU nor the millions of views Murray's video has received. The central theme of the Sludge article has been echoed again and again in academic and journalistic commentary. @Buidhe: I'd be interested to know your thoughts on thisNoteduck (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes I've asserted it. This noticeboard discussion does not say the opposite. That the PragerU video has millions of views doesn't make the Sludge assessment of that video DUE. If the NYT did an assessment of that video then I would agree it's DUE. If the central theme of the Sludge article is echoed by better source why should we cite Sludge? Springee (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"You've again asserted that Sludge is low quality/weight when this noticeboard discussion has established the opposite." The point of discussion is to exchange different ideas, not to get everyone organized into battalion formation. Disagreement is permitted on Wikipedia. Chetsford (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Noteduck has restored the disputed content sourced to Sludge. I do not believe this discussion reached a consensus that Sludge would be either reliable or DUE for contentious claims about a BLP subject. Springee (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about this edit? It looks like there eight other sources, several of them (at a glance, at least) academic in nature - it doesn't seem like Sludge is the locus of dispute there anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• In terms of WP:USEBYOTHERS, I see [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125]. I feel like with that degree of use by others for a relatively new site, people would have to produce actual evidence that they've been getting things wrong in order to argue that it's not reliable. But as I pointed out above, Sludge is not the only source for the disputed content anyway - I see several other high-quality sources. At a glance I'm also not seeing the problem with the Bridgetown source mentioned above, which can be used to cite this via a secondary source anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  If there are better sources than Sludge than use them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Re USEBYOTHERS, the author seems to have a fair few citations (fourth onwards here: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22alex+kotch%22&btnG= ) for articles written in elsewhere. This Cambridge University Press book cites his Sludge article on Tucker Carlson. This peer-reviewed public health journal article cites his Sludge piece on tobacco lobbying. Also a couple of citations in PhD dissertations.[126][127] Not sure if this is a legit journal but another journal citation on Islamophobia: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1067597 I think this is probably a reliable source for a non-extraordinary claim. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this sufficient to establish weight? Springee (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

That discussion is probably better had at the article talk page. Jlevi (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Designers & Dragons

Is Designers & Dragons [128] (various editions) an RS for (a) general information, (b) BLPs about game designers, (c) non-BLP information about games? Chetsford (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable for A, B, or C. RS do not consider it, or the author, RS, to wit: (1) a cursory check on Google News finds it cited by no RS (there is a single mention, in a quotation, in a WIRED article); (2) a check on JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, and Google News finds no non-fiction writing bylined by the author (Shannon Applecline) in RS; there is no evidence the book has been reviewed in any mainstream publication (e.g. Publisher's Weekly, New York Review of Books, etc.) or an indexed, scholarly journal. In addition, this is the only non-fiction book published by the publishing house ("Evil Hat Productions"), and the book's cover page lists only an author, no editor, indicating it is all but WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Chetsford (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Looks reliable-enough (for all but notability determination since it's encyclopedic in scope). Analog Game Studies is a reliable source and they cite Shannon Applecline in three different papers. I would imagine any other game studies journal would be the place to look. -- GreenC 19:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  "Analog Game Studies is a reliable source Is it? When I run it through Google News I don't find a single RS that references it. If it's purporting to be a scholarly journal, it might help to know who indexes it. I've checked Web of Science and PubMed and didn't find it indexed by either; not sure if it's worthwhile for me to keep searching other indices. Chetsford (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  They do peer review. Have an academic focus. Have editorial oversight. I think you are pushing the bar pretty high for a gaming topic. Are you expecting it to be in PubMed for biomedical literature? -- GreenC 02:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  Right. Chetsford seems to have the eccentric opinion that WP:MEDRS applies to role-playing game publications and creators. He may not fully understand the limited scope of the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  By the way, Chetsford, your claim that the book's cover page lists only an author, no editor, indicating it is all but WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Please look on the second page of the "free sample" version you linked to, which provides the information you ask for - and more. Perhaps retract the misinformation you accidentally provided? Newimpartial (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  "Are you expecting it to be in PubMed for biomedical literature?" I'm expecting it to be indexed somewhere like any reputable, non-predatory journal - it could be EBSCO databases, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, anywhere really. If you could maybe just tell me who indexes it that'd help. Thanks. "I think you are pushing the bar pretty high for a gaming topic." Unfortunately, gaming topics do not have the privilege of a only having to follow a set of watered-down, "junior" guidelines for RS. They need to follow the same standards as all other topics. Particularly when dealing with BLP. Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  Chetsford, are you under the impression that there is a different standard for the reliability of independently-published secondary sources to be used in BLPs than there is for non-BLP articles? I was under the impression that the main difference between BLP and non-BLP sourcing is that self-published material - apart from that published by the BLP subject - could not be used to make claims about a BLP subject. In other words the INDEPENDENT requirement is stronger. Are you aware of other differences? Newimpartial (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  Given the journal is peer reviewed, editorial control and academic focus I am satisfied it is reliable for Wikipedia for this purpose. This high bar of indexing in certain commercial databases is arbitrary. More arbitrariness: the journal is held in the holdings of the University of Hamburg and in the catalog of Stanford University. The editors are professors (PhDs) who teach in academia (UC Irvine, SUNY Delhi, University of Cincinnati). They do peer reviews. It is published by Carnegie Mellon University. -- GreenC 18:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  "Peer review" is not a golden ticket to reliability. Our WP:GAN articles are peer-reviewed, that doesn't make them reliable. To be quite frank, I have never encountered a reputable journal that has not been indexed by even one major indexing service. In any case, however, this appears to have devolved into six degrees of separation as the question of whether or not this Analog webzine/journal is RS is a separate issue from the non-reliability of Designers & Dungeons. So we may have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  User:GreenC, "agree to disagree" is Chetsford's catchphrase for when he decides to abandon the discussion of a topic based on evidence and policy. You'll get used to it. Newimpartial (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable for A, B and C - the previous discussion of this source found that it was Generally reliable as a source for facts on games and game companies. Not recommended for use in biographies of living people or to support clearly controversial statements. In other words, the previous consensus was Yes to the current questions A and C and No to B. However, I do not see any policy-compliant objection presented in that discussion to the use of Designers & Dragons for non-controversial BLP information, so I would like to see the RSN finding corrected on that point.

Also, Chetsford who is posing this question now claims that the book's cover page lists only an author, no editor, indicating it is all but WP:SELFPUBLISHED. I do not know what publication Chetsford is looking at, but the four-volume version in my possession (ISBNs 978-1-61317-075-5, 978-1-61317-081-6, 978-61317-084-7 and 978-61317-087-8) credits in each case Shannon Appelcline as the author, John Adams as the editor, Evil Hat Productions as the publisher and 2014 as the copyright date (along with 9 other Evil Hat staff involved in the publication). Definitely not self-published, and independent except when dealing with Evil Hat Productions itself. Newimpartial (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Wired's write up on the book seems pretty positive for the case that it is an RS. [129] ~ El D. (talk to me) 23:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for A and C, marginal for B generally and unreliable in the case of controversial claims about BLPs the book seems to have seen proper editorial oversight but I do not trust Evil Hat to have proper arrangements for making controversial claims about BLPs. I think that it is fine for the WP:GNG given that WP:NOTPAPER explicitly states that we should have more content than a paper encyclopedia like Designers and Dragons. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Golf course website

Can this[130] be used in golf course articles as to either the existence of a course or its ranking. An administrator @Billinghurst: has been removing it out of Beaconsfield Golf Club with the following explanations- 'site non-authoritative, requires accepting cookies,' 'these were spammed which was why they were removed', and 're-read the history, the original author didn't add the spam; look at who did and all the articles that they added the spam'....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Who ae they?Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Questionable as it appears, unless I'm reading it incorrectly, to be largely based on user-generated reviews [131]? Chetsford (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• They were link spammed us back in 2017 per User:COIBot/LinkReports/top100golfcourses.com with their rankings; we removed at the time. I don't see how their ranking criteria can be relied upon without evident criteria and by an experts, no evidence of expertise of rating, etc.. I see nothing that makes them a reliable source with where their information is sourced. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Nithyananda

Is this Telegraph India article a reliable source to use in this BLP? It's been used heavily in the article. Also, I think that page needs protection, but I'm not sure what kind or even if I'll be able to justify it again (I've successfully had it protected before), it'd be nice if someone looked into that. Thanks in advance. Please ping when you reply Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 14:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI, that article is already under pending confirmed protection. The Telegraph India article appears alright, it has quotations from him which should be attributed in the article as well if that hasn't been done. I don't see it being heavily used in the article though? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

See also followup discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Nithyananda again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

New research on ancient indian history and dating

In last few years, some of the following people have come up with original research, theories - with widespread corraboration and proofs about India / Indic / Vedic civilization going back a few thousand years. This point of view aligns very well with the local knowledge and belief system as well, and when scientific proofs are provided, it helps convert "myth" into the proper history.

There are plenty of videos, articles, books - wherein these research have been collated. Some of them are cited here. Recently, I added a bit of information in the Mahabharata page based on this research. The edit was reverted and it was quoted that the author of the book (Nilesh Oak) is a chemical engineer and not an academic.

I would like to ask / understand - on what basis does a piece of information become acceptable in wikipedia ?

https://www.amazon.ca/Historic-Rama-Indian-Civilization-Pleistocene/dp/1494949466/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1C8CJCQ6ZDBG8&dchild=1&keywords=nilesh+oak&qid=1609346676&sprefix=nilesh%2Caps%2C329&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.ca/When-Did-Mahabharata-War-Happen-ebook/dp/B005CDXTTO/ref=sr_1_4?crid=1C8CJCQ6ZDBG8&dchild=1&keywords=nilesh+oak&qid=1609346694&sprefix=nilesh%2Caps%2C329&sr=8-4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGyjvyXEKdc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bsyi4zYHP0

https://sangamtalks.org/dr-raj-vedam/

https://www.amazon.ca/Breaking-India-Interventions-Dravidian-Faultlines/dp/8191067374/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1609346867&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/9385485016/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i6

Isnt this enough to prove that the so called "mainstream" indian history need to be revisited ? Raghav (talk)

Who is Neelakandan?Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow, see if Neelakandan is any help! Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Well that does not mention he is an Author or historian.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

No, and these Hindutva theories are decades old, not "new". P. N. Oak was publishing from the 1960s until his death in 2007. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

its not Neelakandan, rather Nilesh Oak (Nilesh Nilkanth Oak). And, thats just one person, my references are not limited to him. Rather, a different perspective on Indian history, which differs from the so called "mainstram". P N Oak and Nilesh Oak share a surname, nothing else - i.e. they are not related. Even if you want to refer to P N Oak's work - the scientific proofs coming up these days - are definitely new. Raghav (talk)

"by Neelakandan (Author)", so why is what not "Nilesh Nilkanth Oak" (and who is Nilesh Nilkanth Oak)?Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where you are getting this name - Neelkandan. Here is a bit about [Oak]

"Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines Hardcover – Jan. 1 2017 by Neelakandan (Author)" the Amazon page you linked to.Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

well, I was referring to the book, and the first author - Rajiv Malhotra. Raghav (talk)Raghav (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

AS to Mr Oak, what are his credentials?Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what kind of credentials are you looking for ? The link I pointed to - google search page about him - isn’t that a starting point enough ? Raghav (talk)Raghav (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, has he been published in any peer-reviewed astronomical journal, does he have any qualifications in Astronomy (or in fact any degrees in any subject)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Aravinda Neeklandan appears to be the author of the Breaking India book, and the only thing I could find about him is that he has a number of self published books and that he is at present an author with Swarajyamag (RSP entry) so yeah no, likely just another Hindutva proponent, please go through WP:PROFRINGE. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• This stuff is all utter rubbish, nationalistic pseudoscience on stilts. I've seen this character's fraudulent astronomical conclusions crop up at the Surya Siddhanta article. Anything touched by either Oak (this one or the older, more famous, and no less fringe P. N. Oak) should be deprecated utterly. GPinkerton (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

WDR, how are you able to discredit the works based on astronomical evidences ? Have you got evidence to the contrary? Btw, I m not suggesting that whatever he and others are saying is 100% correct; rather that this narrative is worth being considered as a perspective in the overall document on Mahabharata and Ramayana etc. Raghav (talk)Raghav (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

S raghu20, basically speaking, the "astronomical evidences" are just made up. The rest is all pareidolia. There is literally no reason why we should take some guy's internet ramblings as a "narrative worth being considered as a perspective in the overall document on Mahabharata and Ramayana". There are thousands of reliable scholars who have reputable qualifications in both Sanskritology and astronomy; there is literally no reason to credit these claims, which are based on nothing at all. GPinkerton (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Libcom.org

I am proposing that this source should be classified the same as Scribd.com for the same reasoning given for them on RSP or deprecated as their library is full of user uploaded contents and it is a copyright issue. It is a repository of numerous unauthorized scans hosted on its own server or a link farm of infringing links. I've had to remove multiple references to unauthorized infringing copyrighted book/magazine scans hosted on Libcom 1, 2, 3 another one more Graywalls (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems fair. Are there any subsections of the site that are more curated? Or are they all basically user uploads? If some are curated, it would remain a pretty useful resource for that smaller collection of documents. Jlevi (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

We should be wary of making a blanket policy that discourages general use of Libcom and instead work on a case by case basis. It is an incredibly rich and well curated repository and many of of the texts hosted there would not involve any copyright violations. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point. So I support making it red, rather than deprecate. There is a good amount of "uploaded" contents, as such it should be treated as WP:UGC and the fact they have plethora of infringing materials directly hosted is a huge problem in the same way Scribd is. Graywalls (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think making a general assessment on Libcom is very open to misinterpretation. With Scribd, it is effectively a social media platform, but most of what Libcom puts out are reputable published books, as such the problem is people using Libcom as a link, not people using the stuff Libcom produces as a reference. Some sort of edit filter might be preferable so that the citations could be remade correctly. ~ El D. (talk to me) 23:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is my concern. Scribd wasn't primarily depreciated for copyright reasons but because Anyone can upload any document they'd like and there is no assurance that it hasn't been manipulated - anyone can upload anything there, making stuff hosted there suspect (an WP:RS concern) even if it purports to be an accurate copy of a legitimately published work. This concern isn't true for Libcom. Copyright violations are a concern, but they are not a WP:RS concern, so I would be opposed to adding any source to RSP in any context solely based on legal or copyright issues. That's not what RSP is for. --Aquillion (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The copyright issue was one of the issues actually explained in RSP listing for Scribd. Libcom contains quite a bit of WP:UGC making the source WP:QS For example, some kind of UPLOADED essay by user on Libcom http://libcom.org/library/trotsky-left-opposition-rise-stalinism-theory-practice-john-eric-marot as used as a source in the article Communism. Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That essay was originally posted in Historical Materialism (journal) (volume 14, issue 3 published 2006 - a peer-reviewed academic journal affiliated with the University of London and published by Brill Publishers) and as such is not user-generated. It also doesn't appear to be in violation of copyright but that is a matter for people who know more than me. ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Libcom has been described as semi-reliable. Again it's to broad, it is an excellent source for a large amount of varying information presented by anarchists, of course it's biased and we use the source with care. However many Libcom authors include well known academics such as Noam Chomsky, to accept Noam Chomsky only when he is writing outside of Libcom seems well ridiculous. It can be an excellent source for anarchism assuming we use it with care. Therefor stating it as self published source seems extremely off. Many articles use libcom for good reason. Des Vallee (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The Needle Drop

I already know how this discussion's going to go, but I'd like to once again revisit Anthony Fantano's reliability as a source. At this point, given that he's been called The Only Music Critic Who Matters" by the New York Times (AKA the most reliable of reliable sources), Wikipedia's refusal to acknowledge him as an album reviewer seems to based more on respect for precedent and/or stubbornness than his actual merits as a reliable source. It is both at odds with reality and inconsistent with the way other sources are treated.

Jim Sterling is self-published and self-reviewed, yet his reliability as a source for video game reviews is not questioned. Like Fantano, Sterling's work was published under someone else's brand before he moved into self-publushing. Unlike Fantano, his current practice of self-publishing is not used as an excuse to remove his reviews from articles. Can someone please explain why Jim Sterling is an acceptable opinion to cite for video game reviews when the same is not true for Fantano and music reviews? PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call NYT "the most reliable of reliable sources". We tend to rate scholarly sources higher than journalism. (t · c) buidhe 03:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this and was thinking about opening a thread about this (Its worth noting that the "The Only Music Critic Who Matters" was subtitled "If you are under 25"). This isn't really a source reliability question, but more a discussion about whether Fantano's stature is equivalent to those of mainstream media outlets like Pitchfork for album reviews, and whether his opinions are due for inclusion in the reception section, but as we are discussing a particular source this is the appropriate noticeboard. The fact that he is a self-published source is irrelevant for his opinions on albums. Fantano's status as an independent music critic is Sui generis, that is to say, totally unique, there simply aren't any other contemporary independent music critics with anywhere near his stature, which rivals that in audience and reach of mainstream music publications. I don't think that Fantano's opinion should be mass edited into every album he has ever reviewed, but I don't think he should be banned either as he effectively is now. I think his reviews should also count towards the notability of any album he covers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't agreed with this. The problem with his reviews that he post them on YouTube, which is a self-published website and self-published websites are not reliable sources per WP:SPS. Basically anyone on YouTube can do a album review besides Anthony Fantano. I'm a fan of the guy but I don't think it should be allowed on Wikipedia, if it supported by a third party source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts:, Music reviews are subjective, Fantano isn't being cited to support statements of fact, but his opinion on music, ergo this isn't a reliability issue. In the 2020 RfC there was clear concensus against adding an edit filter to YouTube links because youtube is a platform, not a publisher and has no effect on source reliability. The question is a due weight one, namely, does Fantano have the same prominence as critics in professional publications that he deserves to be placed in the reception section, and does he qualify as a subject-matter expert? Arguably, he does. "Basically anyone on YouTube can do a album review besides Anthony Fantano" yeah but how many of those have recieved multiple profiles in high-profile publications? Fantanos status as an independent music critic is unique, and to just dismiss him as a "YouTuber" is silly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Further to this, we accept Robert Christgau's personal and private reviews on many album articles, and not just because it is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. While NYT may not be a glowing endorsement, I tend to agree with the "marginal use" opinions offered here. We don't know if Fantano has an editor or makes retractions, or even if there may be payola involved in having Fantano offer a review, so I would not accept Fantano's word as final, but if an album has fewer than five reviews and Fantano has reviewed the work, it would benefit our project to include the review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, accepting Robert Christgau's self published reviews but not Fantano's is hypocritical. Fantano covers many less popular albums by smaller musicians and his views would enhance the reception sections of those articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: That's not the same and it's not hypocritical. The thing is Robert Christgau has written his reviews on his website in this fashion and now on Substack. That's different then posting a video on a website that can be considered as unreliable. So are you saying we should use Anthony Fantano's videos as a reliable sources instead of an article? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

As long as it's some sort of "official" YT-account or whatever, they seem about equally WP:SPS, with the possible subject-matter expert exception. See also WP:RSPYT. CNN on YT is as WP:RS as CNN elsewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Fantano has his own website, which functions as direct youtube links. I don't see why there is an issue citing Fantano when theres no issue citing say a CNN report. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

These comparisons don’t make any sense. CNN isn’t applicable — CNN (or whatever news source of your liking) is a massive publication with editorial oversight and review. Needle Drop is a person - Fantano - a person uploading his content straight to YouTube. Entirely different. The problem is no editorial oversight, no policy, nothinh, just a guy recording his thoughts and throwing it on YouTube. That is absolutely not what happens when a news reporter uploads content to a publications YouTube channel. Completely different. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I completely agreed. Using a video review is not the same then using a text review, these comparisons are dumb and don't make any sense. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Is he an acknowledged expert (by more then one RS) ?Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Also against this. This has been discussed to death at the musical WikiProjects. It’s straightforward - hes a self-publishing Youtuber. It’s extremely rare that such a sourc is deemed usable on Wikipedia. If anything, we should be re-looking at why we deem someone like Jim Sterling as usable, not the other way around. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: And yet Christgau's self-published reviews are just fine eh? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia Why would you put words in my mouth like that? When have I ever said that? If you’re going to respond to me, please at least address the comments I’m actually making. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You were a participant to the 2014 discussion on Wikiproject Albums on Christgau in which you stated that "I would consider [Christgau] generally reliable regardless of genre, unless a consensus at a given article deems the source not to be used" for his non-self published work. Do you agree or disagree that Christgau's self published reviews are usable? I'm not addressing your arguments because its pretty clear from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_228#The_Needle_Drop that your actual reasoning is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and that you think that he's "just some guy on YouTube", describing him as "mak[ing] boastful, unfounded claims without proof or explanation" and criticising him for making joke reviews even though Pitchfork does the exact same thing, and not addressing the evidence presented from reliable sources that Fantano is indeed a notable critic. Hemiauchenia (talk)

Apologies for me not realizing you were responding to something I said six years ago to someone else? My sentiment from 6 years ago was that Christgau was usable but not compulsory and that he should be used sparingly. I personally dont use him at all, but I’ve learned to pick my battles because older editors in the music WikiProjects appreciate his work. Believe it or not, opinions can change over the course of 6 years, and if someone put forth an effort to not use Christgau anymore, I’d probably support it. Anyways, regardless, My problem with Fantano is that he’s self-published. Please assume good faith. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the attention and endorsements that Fantano has received from RS makes a strong case for his expertise and relevance on a USEBYOTHERS basis. In addition to the NYTimes coverage linked above, here's two more examples attesting his relevance: [132], [133]. His use of the video format is annoying for us since text sources are so much easier to work with, but that's not a reason to consider him unreliable or irrelevant. Concerns about a lack of editorial oversight or fact checking are less germane for assessing his relevance because ultimately he is primarily being used for his opinion, and the question is whether his opinion is relevant, not whether it is "accurate". With that in mind, I wouldn't use him for controversial factual claims, but I think it's valid to cite his opinion as part of critical reception sections for music. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• I think that RSes have praised Fantano's reviews enough that his opinion "matters" enough to be included in the review section of album articles --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Another note - the opening comments are also misleading. To say WP:VG full-heartedly supports Jim Sterling’s use as a source is not accurate. If you look at their source list - WP:VG/S - you’ll see Sterling listed as “situational” with caveats and restrictions on his use. As someone who also edits in music and game content areas, I can verify that we often treat Sterling the same way we do Fantano - limiting the use of his content to when it’s been published by reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

My comment about Christgau is based on fully recognizing his body of work in reliable sources, with editorial oversight. He has been recognized as an expert and has written several books on albums. None of these books were self-published. There are reliable, sources that believe he is a qualified music journalist. There are discussions that have reached consensus that he is a RS when he writes on his own as well as when he has been published in other sources.

I have not seen any sources that support this same standard for Fantano. I have seen editors claim that sources exist. Please provide them so we can see what the sources say about Fantano. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: The Needle Drop

Can Anthony Fantano (The Needle Drop) be used for his reviews of music in the reception section of articles? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Responses (The Needle Drop)

• Yes There is no disagreement on the fact that Anthony Fantano is a self-published source, and therefore should be not used for independent claims about living persons. However, Fantano's opinion on music is not a question about whether Fantano is a reliable source, but whether or not he is a prominent critic. Coverage by reliable sources such as a profile in the NYTimes indicates that he is, and that he has a substantial following, far more so than any other independent music critic aside from Robert Christgau. Some editors have dismissed Fantano because he uses YouTube as the medium of his content, and that because YouTube is an "unreliable source" we should exclude him. However in the 2020 RfC on YouTube, it was determined that YouTube is a platform, not a publisher, and has no effect on source reliability. I don't think Anthony Fantano is more important than more mainstream music review outlets or that his opinion should be on every album that he has ever reviewed, but I see no reason to exclude him entirely as the current WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at WP:ALBUM does (Technically the rule is that his views must be mentioned by a separate reliable source, in practice this functions as an almost total exclusion) and his reviews of less popular albums would help flesh out coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

After having a think about this and doing some additional research, I have come to some conclusions. Fantano and Pitchfork have a lot of overlap in what they cover in terms of more obscure albums, while Fantano's reviews of lobsterfight - pink, black, and orange in the corners and Dope Body - Crack a Light are the only reviews of these particular albums I can find. I agree with other commenters that there's not much reason to use Fantano for mainstream popular music where there is likely to be extensive coverage by other sources, unless reliable sources consider his opinion on them significant. I also agree that the inclusion of Fantano's reviews should vary on a case by case basis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Only when no other sources can be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Only when no other sources can be found. At the end of the day, he is a YouTuber. His Wikipedia page uses {{Infobox YouTuber}}, his page says "YouTuber", so he’s a YouTuber. No one can tell me otherwise, for obvious reasons. YouTube as a platform is not reliable. It has no one to review videos, no one to fact check. That is left entirely to the content creators. Even if someone is a verified creator, in my eyes, they aren’t any more reliable then a verified Twitter account as Twitter is the same amount of unreliable. Having NYT recognize their person doesn’t make their videos more reliable. The platform is still YouTube. I’ve seen all sides of the argument from reading the above discussion, and I’m suggesting he is questionable as a source and should not be used when not needed, but can be used under dire circumstances (i.e. when there are minimal (0-2) reviews other than him and it is safe to assume no other sources will review the album). D🎉ggy54321 ^{(happy new year!)} 02:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Revote: No. After careful consideration, I have changed my vote to "No" per comments made by ImaginesTigers and Ojorojo, as well as about 60% of my original comment (arguments about Fantano being a YouTuber, the whole bit about YouTube being unreliable and the Twitter analogy). D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• No (Unreliable unless published/mentioned by a separate reliable source) - per my prior comments and WP:SPS. The issue is less about YouTube being the medium, and more about how he’s just a self-publisher without the things we look for in a professional publication. (No editorial oversight, editorial policy, anything like that.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, usable for music review content per my comment above. There is evidence of multiple RS treating him as a significant voice in music criticism. The weight of his opinions obviously is something to be decided on a case-by-case basis, although like other editors I doubt there will be much of a reason to cite him on articles where there's extensive mainstream critical coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes (for music reviews), after reading the comments here and the article on him, I concur with Rosguill. Clearly RS treat him as a prominent critic, so he should be considered one by us per that conference of credibility; the platform he is on shouldn't matter, though I also agree that the weight his opinions are given should be decided on a case-by-case basis. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Usable for music reviews per the RSes treating him as an important voice of music criticism. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, per Hemiauchenia. As a self-published source, Fantano is not a reliable source for factual claims. But given his notability, I see no reason why his opinions cannot be cited. Obviously he should not be the sole or even primary source of a Reception article except in special cases, e.g. Angelic 2 the Core but a few sentences mentioning his review would be fine. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• No: While I do enjoy Fantano's reviews myself, they should not be cited directly because they either come from YouTube or his website, which is self published. However, if a non contested reliable source publishes one or more of them, then that is fine to be cited. --K. Peake 06:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• No: I agreed with Doggy54321 and Sergecross73. Fantano's reviews would be reliable if they published by an reliable source. We should not ignore the fact that his reviews are still self-published. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes: After thinking about it, I have change my vote from no to yes, due to what Binksternet and JG66 has said. While I still think YouTube should be avoided for obvious reasons (per WP:SELFPUB), but Anthony Fantano is a well-known music critic and his reviews should not be ignored. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes except for BLP material. WP:SELFPUB appears to be directly relevant here and the material cited in the discussion above convinces me that this person meets the criteria in that policy. ElKevbo (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, we can and should use the Needle Drop for recent releases. My opinion has changed on this; I first thought Fantano was a flash in the pan, but he has proved his staying power, and his reviews are much discussed. We are here to summarize for the Wikipedia readers all the relevant literature, and whether we like it or not, Fantano has become part of the literature of music released since 2009. It matters less that he is right or correct in his reviews (Christgau famously went against the grain many times) and more that his reviews get tons of eyeballs, and attract strong reactions. Fantano is the subject of a few in-depth pieces about his career as a music critic, and none of them say he cannot be trusted. Australian entertainment news outlet Junkee said Fantano was praised by Christgau.[134] Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

He was definitely acknowledged by Christgagu, but to call it praise is questionable, the full quote (rather than the snippet in the article) seemed pretty dismissive to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - He's popular, perhaps he's the "wave of the future," but he's also, as the NYT article mentions, as much an entertainer as a critic. The article also mentions a managing editor, without describing what this editor actually does. The comparisons with Christgau are bizarre; Christgau has written for dozens of prestigious publications for over five decades, and has served as an editor himself; he is also an acknowledged expert on popular music. Mr. Fantano worked at a college radio station, and then Connecticut Public Radio. That would seem to be about it? He can be hugely popular, and even a harbinger, without actually meeting Wikipedia's standards for integrity and oversight. But, like Pitchfork, he will most likely continue to professionalize and mainstream himself and his platform, and may yet meet these outdated notions of editorial oversight. Caro7200 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes on critical opinion, No for factual claims - The New York Times piece demonstrates that Fantano's critical opinion matters in today's new wave of journalism, whether we like it or not. I think some of the "No" votes are taking a black and white approach to WP:SELFPUB when the guideline is actually a bit more grey. The purpose of the guideline is to deter editors from sourcing material that clearly has no ground to stand on, like blogs and forum posts. It offers consideration for self-published authors who are deemed "subject-matter experts". While the guideline looks to works published in reliable sources to support this, I think this Times piece is an acceptable substitute. I think everyone should read it before voting. Now, music opinions are cheap :), but facts are not. Since the inner workings of The Needle Drop and its editorial process are still an enigma to me, I can't say there is strong enough editorial oversight that he can be used for factual claims. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 05:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes for music reviews, per Rosguill and TheSandDoctor. He's treated as a significant critic in reliable sources, so while obviously his reviews shouldn't be given undue weight, they do merit inclusion. --Drevolt (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, but only for music reviews, and even then sparingly; his opinion is not a must-have in any given section on critical reception. Surprises me big time that I've come around to this way of thinking, but I'm swayed by some of the arguments put forward above. Binksternet's especially. I work pretty exclusively on music articles from the 1960s and early '70s, so I'd be surprised if there was ever a need for Fantano's opinions in those articles (he'd have to get in line behind dozens of critics and journalists – several dozen perhaps – going back decades). But Fantano's standing, at least as I understand it from this RfC, reminds of what I've read about Paul Williams when he founded Crawdaddy in the mid '60s. Williams had zero in the way of professional experience and for some time his (SPS) publication was just a fanzine, but it was immediately popular and highly influential; some music historians credit the Williams–Crawdaddy combination as the start of genuine rock/pop criticism. Fantano appears to have spearheaded a similarly revolutionary approach to how we view professional music reviews. I still think inclusion via secondary sources is preferred over directly citing his YouTube pieces, but then that's the approach I generally adhere to anyway – eg, by letting artist biographies, books on music history, etc, serve as the guide to what we include from contemporaneous (1960s) album and song reviews even if the entire review is now available online. JG66 (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. I don't understand why other editors are ignoring the self-published requirement. You cannot, in my view, argue that he meets the expert criteria; that's a wilful misunderstanding of what its actual purpose, which is beyond even citing journalism—it’s for academics. An article in The New York Times about him is not the publication reproducing his work or his analysis. The NYT is actually kind of disparaging about his videos, calling them long-winded (maybe that's because he's self-published, and has no editorial oversight). Neither does it imbue him with any authority; the only person calling Fantano "an authority" in the article is a musician and college student whose [TWITTER] account does bite-size criticism. The NYT saying that he is a music critic that matters to people under 25 does not make him an expert; it makes him notable. Allowing YouTubers to be cited, selectively, is absolutely buck-wild. He's a notable, self-published source, who shouldn't be cited. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• No The bar for critics should be fairly high. Many viewers may like him, but his reviews don't appear to be quoted or otherwise used in artist bios, music reference works, etc.[135] He may be popular, but otherwise doesn't seem to be an established expert, as per WP:SELFPUBLISH. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• No – I agree with Ojorojo here. Even though Fantano can be considered influential on listeners of today, he's still self-published. – zmbro _(talk) 16:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• No – I've read the NYT piece and, if I had reservations from voting one way or another before, I don't now. Maybe I'm getting old :/ isento (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Note – Keep in mind that self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid: "A self-published source by an expert may include a significant opinion that hasn’t yet appeared in a non-self-published source" Perhaps revisit this source in the future, which is what the handful of reliable sources covering Fantano claim he represents. Apparently, he studied journalism, which is a plus. But allowing him as a source right now would be too much too soon. I think we should give it some more time, allow for some more coverage to develop around him to establish his credibility as an expert source, beyond the cultists who see him as one. isento (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (TND)

Pinging previous participants to the discussion:@PDMagazineCoverUploading: @TheAmazingPeanuts: @Sergecross73: @Guerillero: @Rosguill:. Sorry for the repetition, but I think this is best resolved by having a well attended RfC. Feel free to simply re-add your thoughts, as I didn't feel comfortable altering peoples text. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, I've been busy updating our 1925 book covers for Public Domain Day and haven't payed as close attention to this discussion as I should. I agree with the idea that Fantano is acceptable to cite as a reviewer, but not as a reliable source for factual information. In other words: It should be acceptable to mention Fantano's review on Angelic 2 The Core, but he should not be cited on the Corey Feldman article as a source for information about Feldman. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk)

I'm disturbed at the number of editors who appear to be ignorant or completely dismissive of WP:SELFPUB, a policy that has widespread consensus. Editor who believe that a self-published source cannot be considered reliable or used under any circumstances are encouraged to raise those objections at the Talk page of that policy; it's inappropriate to ignore or undermine that policy in this RfC. ElKevbo (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: What part of SELFPUB do you think makes it acceptable for a self-published music review to be used on an article about that reviewed work? I know that they may be used about themselves, but nowhere in there does that part of the policy page suggest that it can be used about another person. The one exception I see there is if the reviewer is an "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Again, waiting to hear how Fantano's reviews meet the criteria listed there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

A musical work is not a person so that doesn't seem relevant. "I don't think this person has met the bar of being a recognized expert" is a reasonable position to take but that's not what you wrote above in your !vote. What you wrote above - that this source is reliable if there aren't any other sources - doesn't actually make any sense at all. ElKevbo (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: What I wrote above and what I am asking here are not necessarily connected. I am asking you what part of SELFPUB makes it acceptable for a self-published music review to be used on an article about that reviewed work? I do not see a connection and I don't think you have any justification. I suspect you're using SELFPUB in a way that it is not written to support. In short, SELFPUB does not apply to a self-published reviews—whether they be on YouTube or their own blog—and you know it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is a self-published review different from any other self-published source? ElKevbo (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you answer his question or not? Sergecross73 msg me 18:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no "YouTube exception" to WP:SELFPUB so the burden is on those who are arguing for such an exceptional situation. ElKevbo (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Walter Gorlitz has already answered the question himself: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." As EK observes, one can argue about whether Fantano meets the conditions of this sentence; but if he does meet the conditions, then WP:SELFPUB is an endorsement of using his reviews. (EK is making a really simple point, I'm not sure why people are pretending not to understand it.) --JBL (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Yeah, why most of the editors are ignoring the guidelines on self-published sources. I understand Anthony Fantano is well-known but why are we giving him a pass since he still published his reviews on YouTube. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

What does publication on YouTube have to do with anything? ElKevbo (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: YouTube is a self-published source, which is unreliable. If we considering using him as a reliable source for music reviews, I suggest we use his blog instead of direct links to his videos. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This is just wrong -- per WP:SELFPUB, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." This is true regardless of the medium of publication (YouTube, blog, etc.). --JBL (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Self-published sources, including YouTube videos, are not inherently unreliable. If you would like to change the project-wide consensus on this, I recommend and request that you do so at the Talk page of WP:SELFPUB.

I have no opinion on whether this person's videos or blog posts are better sources except to note that blog posts are not inherently more reliable or "better" than videos nor are videos inherently unreliable or "worse" that other media. ElKevbo (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: @JayBeeEll: I understand what the guidelines says, but it seems like almost everybody in this discussion is given Fantano's YouTube reviews an exception, which we should not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts appears to be notifying specific users about this RfC, 1 2 3 4 5 6, many others can be seen in his edit history, in violation of WP:CANVASSING rules. Canvassing rules state that making notifications on the talkpages of users are allowed if:

• They have made substantial edits to the topic or article
• They have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
• They are known for expertise in the field
• They have asked to be kept informed". I don't know enough about the opinions of users in question to know if this is an attempt at votestacking. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I was making editors aware of this discussion, why you making a big deal about this? Let's stay on topic here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Because you could be selectively notifying editors who you know agree with your opinion, and thus altering the outcome of this RfC. I don't know enough about the people you have notified to know if that it is correct, but your notifications on users talk pages should be noted in this discussion for transparency. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: You are wrong, I did this before with past discussions to let editors (who work on music-related articles) know there is a discussion to avoid edit wars in the future. I don't care if they agreed with my opinion or not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You directly notified 16 users, including: Drevolt, Kyle Peake, JG66, Zmbro, Binksternet, Robvanvee, MarioSoulTruthFan, Jennica, SnapSnap, Sock, BawinV, HĐ, Doggy54321, BillieLiz, Holiday56 and Isento. I'm not sure that counts as excessive under current canvassing rules, but that is a lot of users. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I recognize most as being editors who are or have been active in the music-related content area. And the notifications I spot checked were neutrally worded. And I don’t particularly view any of these editors as "buddies" with AnazingPeanuts who are likely to automatically side with him. (Not am I - AmazingPeanuts and I have clashed on numerous occasions.) This feels like another distraction... Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's simply a case of TAP being the collaborative type and wanting to ensure as many regular or semi-regular editors as possible weigh in on each issue. That way, the outcome's a convincing one, whichever way it goes. (Looking at the list of 16 people, I wouldn't say we're all of one mind on most things, anyway.) I think it's an admirable approach. It's certainly better than when editors try to push something through before too many people become aware of the discussion, even though the outcome could well affect the whole project. Anyway ... JG66 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: @JG66: This is what I trying to do. I not telling other editors to disagree with Hemiauchenia, I just letting other editors (who work mostly on album-related articles) to know there is an discussion involving a popular reviewer. This topic is unrelated and should not even be discuss. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

As an editor who was pinged, I can confidently say that it is not canvassing. TheAmazingPeanuts and I have made edits to the same pages, but as far as I can recall, we have yet to have a talk conversation just the two of us. The most we’ve interacted is in RMs. While I do appreciate him bringing this to my attention, his vote/comments did not influence my vote. We literally have opposing votes. @Hemiauchenia: I’ve never been involved in a discussion like this before, so how would TAP even come to the conclusion that I would oppose this? I’m a part of WP:MUSIC, WP:ALBUM and WP:SONG, so I deserve to be part of this conversation. Music is my field of interest on Wikipedia. Besides, the more opinions the better. Side note: I don’t think saying you could be selectively notifying editors who you know agree with your opinion is assuming good faith. As JG66 said, it was probably just because TAP wants as many editors as possible to have a comment in this discussion. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I regret the accusation of canvassing, its just that the notification of specific users for RfC's is something that can easily be used to alter outcomes, which makes me wary. "you could be selectively notifying editors who you know agree with your opinion" was not accusatory, it was just a reflection on the nature on notifying specific individuals rather than Wikiprojects. TheAmazingPeanuts is a good contributor and I have nothing against them. Some of my actions during the discussions were too hasty, and I'm feeling in a strange, reflective move, and I regret the way I handled myself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah look, let's just put this thing to bed. It's quite understandable that you raised concerns re WP:CANVASS, Hemiauchenia, just as it was very welcome when you subsequently withdrew the tags you'd(?) added to the relevant editors' ivotes. There's no hard feeling, and no one's acted inappropriately. Besides, as the voting shows already, there's a wide range of opinions among TAP's supposedly favoured 16. (I'm just slightly peeved that I appear to be fairly low down on TAP's list of party invites, judging by their contribs at that time ... [I'm joking – I'm JOKING!] There was a Seinfeld episode based on that theme, I think.) JG66 (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

How Stuff Works

Curious to know what others think about the reliability of How Stuff Works. They don't appear on WP:RSP at all as of Dec 2020. Their website has a section on reliability where they talk about their approach, their commitment to transparency, awards they've received, and writer selection process. They also stress that they're not a primary source, but my understanding is that secondary sources are acceptable on Wikipedia, as long as they're not the topic of a page. I'm on the fence on this one, and would love to know what other, more experienced editors think. Mozby (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Unreliable: HowStuffWorks doesn't seem to issue corrections, they quietly edit things they find to be wrong. They do seem to have some rigor, but transparency is hard with these websites. I'd say whenever possible, try to use any secondary sources they cite.

References

• Generally Reliable rated as very highly factual on grounds of being pro-science by MB/FC. [136] ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@El komodos drago: Media Bias Fact Check is not a reliable source per WP:MBFC and should not be invoked in source reliability discussions. It has no editorial oversight. It rated the Epoch Times as "factual" until media coverage forced them to change the rating. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

MB/FC is inappropriate for article content but in terms of reliability generally arrives at the same conclusion we do here so an MB/FC rating in the absence of other evidence is generally a good pointer. (given that most sources gain little to no coverage in third parties, MB/FC is probably the best place to start most discussions from). Obviously, RSN is here because we do not take MB/FC as gospel, it is just one source of many. But let's go and look at the factors that MB/FC will have used for its decision for our selves.

It reports largely on scientific studies, so uses factual sourcing. A brief glance at it reveals it to be pro-science. It doesn't appear to be pushing conspiracy theories. A search for failed fact checks [137][138] gives no results. This is what an MB/FC rating of highly factual means.

Basically, if what we've got is MB/FC and nothing else, I'd go with the MB/FC. ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

But saying "MCFC found it reliable, therefore it is reliable" isn't a meaningful contribution, you've said essentially nothing about HSW except for repeating MBFC's superficial analysis. I could say that "I fucking love science" iflscience.com   is pro-science, but it isn't a reliable source. My own opinion about HSW is that it is a marginal source for facts, and that anything that HSW covers is likely going to be better covered by other more reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, a more in-depth analysis. How Stuff Works is listed as a class room resource by PBS [139], The Guardian describes it as professionally writen [140], it is used as a source by The Independent [141], it was a New York Times podcast pick [142]. Is that still too superficial? ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Eclipse of the Assassins

1. Source. Bartley, Russell H.; Bartley, Sylvia Erickson (2015). Eclipse of the Assassins : The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendia. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.

2. Article. Kiki Camarena and related articles, including BLP Félix Rodríguez (soldier)

3. Content. General suitability as a source for WP:REDFLAG claims

Eclipse of the Assassins propagates the conspiracy theory that the CIA was involved in the 1985 murder of DEA agent Kiki Camarena to cover-up a drug smuggling operation to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. Various federal investigations long ago rejected the CIA drug smuggling claims (i.e. [143][144][145]), and the largest homicide investigation ever conducted by the DEA identified Mexican drug traffickers as Camarena's murderers (e.g.[146]). The book includes WP:REDFLAG claims by two former DEA agents (Hector Berrellez and Phil Jordan) and a self-proclaimed CIA agent (Tosh Plumlee, known to the FBI for fabricating various claims over the past 50 years, including his presence in Dealey Plaza during the assassination of JFK[147][148][149][150][151][152]) that have been rejected (e.g. [153][154][155][156]) by those that include the former DEA head (Jack Lawn), the Inspector in Charge of the Camarena case (Jack Taylor), and a journalist who has followed the case for years and is described as an expert in "drug kingpins" (Elaine Shannon). Some of the other problematic sources that the book uses in an attempt to bolster its claims include: 1) Gary Webb (whose Dark Alliance series claiming that the CIA supported drug trafficking to raise funds for the Contras set off the firestorm leading to the various government investigations); 2) Spartacus Educational (criticized by the SPLC for promulgating conspiracy theories and conspiracy sources, and has itself been rejected as reliable source in various discussions here); 3) Terry Reed (self-proclaimed CIA agent known for his claims of having inside knowledge of CIA drug smuggling and that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush endorsed and profited from it); and 4) Richard Brenneke (self-proclaimed CIA agent known for his claims about the October Surprise conspiracy theory who says, like Plumlee, he was one of the CIA drug running pilots).

Despite a plethora of dubious sources for controversial claims, there is a question as to whether this is automatically a reliable source because it was written by a retired history professor (with his wife) and published by a university press. Questions: Are books written by academics automatically considered reliable, or can they still be considered unreliable or "fringe"? Are books published by university presses automatically considered reliable, or can they still be considered unreliable or "fringe"? To what extent are editors permitted to vet the sources used by such those sources? Can this particular source be used for statement of fact, and to what extent is WP:INTEXT applicable or necessary? Thanks! - Location (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that most editors, including me, have a presumption of reliability for materials published by reputable university presses that have undergone peer review as part of the press's normal publication and editing processes. We can and should make exceptions when there is evidence that those processes broke down or there are other significant irregularities.

I know nothing about this particular topic, the author, or the claims that are made in this book so I cannot provide any detailed comments on this source. I do wonder, however, how the author used the sources that you claim are dubious; there is a world of difference between mentioning a source and using it as a foundation for making significant claims. ElKevbo (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The output of university presses are considered generally reliable, not the books themselves. To use a metaphor, we consider the New York Times reliable but they can (and do) make mistakes. Books published by professors may be reliable under the 'subject matter expert' clause but generally far less so for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. Eclipse of the Assassins was apparently positively spoken of by an assistant professor in the Hispanic American Historical Review, [157] a professor in the European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, [158] and in the Midwest Book Review [159]. That is not to say that this is accepted scholarship but it seems somewhat unlikely if the response of the entire academic community was "oh dear we shouldn't have published that".

I would personally say that it should not be used for any BLP claims and should be used with in-text attribution and given low weight but would be hesitant to dismiss it out of hand. Obviously, the US government has a conflict of interest in reporting an alleged murder by the CIA, and Webb's coverage (and the whole CIA-Contra story) remains controversial but I would lean on the side of caution unless a corroborating source is found. ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@El komodos drago: I don't understand how your second paragraph can follow the first. In your first paragraph, you state that this book that has been written by an academic expert (and published by an academic press) has been favorably reviewed by other academics in peer-reviewed journals. But then your second paragraph says that we should give this source "low weight" and only with "caution." Those things don't seem to match up. ElKevbo (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I do tend to get carried away. I am weighing the origins of the source with it making an exceptional claim. If there are other sources that reiterate the claim then I would be happier giving it normal weight and using it for BLPs. ~ El D. (talk to me) 22:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(basically what the person closing the RfC said) ~ El D. (talk to me) 22:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This RSN post appears to be an attempt to relitigate a closed RfC on the Kiki Camarena talkpage that was found in favor of including the allegations included within the book. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, while I am sure Location is acting in good faith, unintentional forum shopping has the same problems as that of the intentional variety. ~ El D. (talk to me) 23:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. I agree with the close. There are questions as to whether 1) WP:REDFLAG allegations, even by a former history professor, must conform to WP:INTEXT and 2) how allegations that contradict other sources should be presented. - Location (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

My reading of the RfC is that in regards to Can this particular source be used for statement of fact the answer is yes, it can with the exceptions laid out in the RfC (no content in lead etc.). In regards to to what extent is WP:INTEXT applicable or necessary? the answer is yes, in-text attribution is necessary. This means that it must be clear that this is what is in the book and whether or not it is true is unclear. I hope that helps, ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

hotairengines.org

1. hotairengines.org
   
2. Stirling_engine
   
3. Early hot air engines
   

This source has been used on the listed article and on several others related to the technology being discussed, ie hot air engines and several inventors. This website has a single author who cites difficult-to-verify sources that all appear to have been published earlier than 1900. In the instance cited above, the entire subsection has only that one website for 12 references, and places where several more would have been appropriate under different circumstances.

My biggest problem with this is the website author seems to have put his personal bias on the presentation of facts and their importance to the scientific community. Also, I haven't been able to confirm that Isaac Woerlen, whose only point of contact is through LinkedIn, has the 'chops' to be relied upon so heavily. Does he have a degree relative to the subject matter?

I'm inclined to believe that rather than this author being cited, an editor might chase down his sources and use them.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 21:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Many of the sources cited at hotairengines.org are primary sources. Woerlen seems to have done a great job aggregating historical facts and diagrams into the website, which would make it a secondary source, as Wikipedia prefers. IMHO the website is a good one, but your concern about the author's opinion is valid. Woerlen's opinions are not notable unless there is secondary coverage of him, I think; so judgements like "most important" should be discarded. The facts are not controversial, are they? Thundermaker (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune

I'm really not an expert here - but I feel like the [chicagotribune.com Chicago Tribune] should definitely make the list? It's a reliable and widely circulated newspaper in the United States. I found it cited in over 500 articles. OfficerCow (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It is already considered a reliable source. The reason it isn't on the list is that it's reliability has not been seriously challenged, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Really? Who's challenging the Washington Post and the New York Times but not the Chicago Tribune? OfficerCow (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

They have been challenged in the past, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

State-sponsored fake news sites

The US State Department released a report in August 2020, titled Pillars of Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem, which documented six state-sponsored disinformation / fake news sites. There is some overlap with the EU's anti-disinformation East Stratcom Task Force's sites that have already been blacklisted here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#State-sponsored_fake_news_sites. The six sites named in the State Department report are:

• www.strategic-culture.org Strategic Culture Foundation
• journal-neo.org
• globalresearch.ca (already blacklisted)
• news-front.info
• southfront.org (already blacklisted)
• www.geopolitica.ru
• katehon.com

Would propose that these four sites be added to the spamblocked sites from the December 2019 RfC here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#RfC:_Deprecation_of_fake_news_/_disinformation_sites.

Suppose that another RfC would be required for this? - Amigao (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose any blanket determination of unreliability of websites based on a national security agency's declaration as inconsistent with the intent of the RfC which directs deprecation in cases identified by "reputable sources" (plural). This is not a statement opposing the spamblocking of any site on this list (they're all, obviously, non-RS), only the manner in which we're proposing it occur and based on the singular evidence offered. I would support a specific RfC dealing with each site, individually, but not an en masse determination based solely on the declaration of a single nation's security apparatus. This does not constitute (a) sources (plural) as per the RfC, or, (b) reliable sources as per the RfC, since the source in question is an agency of the U.S. Department of State whose singular mission is "advancing the interests of the American people" [160] (a fine mission but incongruous with the concept of reliability). Further underscoring the unreliability of the U.S. State Department as a source, is the fact that it has repeatedly either proved to have lied to advance its mission or been strongly suspected of lying to do so over a period of 80 years with great flippancy on a vast multitude of topics (e.g. [161], [162], [163],[164], [165], [166], [167], etc.) Chetsford (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• We shouldn't automatically declare any source reliable or unreliable solely because a government department said so, but there can definitely be a discussion on each of the sources, and the fact that the State Department declared them unreliable should in my opinion hold some weight (not dispositive weight, but some weight) in those discussions. Zoozaz1 talk 00:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, the EU's anti-disinformation East Stratcom Task Force has documented quite a bit of disinformation from each of these sources. Just a few examples:

• katehon.com - anti-vaxxer disinfo [168]
• strategic-culture.org - anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories [169]
• journal-neo.org - COVID-19 bioweapon conspiracy [170]
• news-front.info - COVID-19 vaccine disinfo [171] - Amigao (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would also consider the East Stratcom Task Force non-RS for the following three reasons:

1. They are an agency of a state-sponsored national security agency (the European External Action Service) and should not be viewed as an objective factfinder but, rather, a mechanism to advance the foreign policy and national security objectives of its government sponsor; the government sponsor, in this case, is engaged in non-militarized conflict against the sponsor of the other sites (Russia) so its objectivity is questionable. As well, they don't follow any normal editorial standards (for example, all of their posts are unsigned and anonymous) and there is no evidence they are functionally independent of the governing political apparatus of the EU.
2. The ESTF's reliability and editorial independence has been directly challenged in the past by reliable sources (e.g. [172], [173], etc.).
3. A cursory search of the ESTF archives finds numerous examples of it publishing objectively false information (just to cite one example, here [174], it claimed residents of Washington, D.C. weren't allowed to vote in U.S. presidential elections).

Disinformation is a popular subject of media coverage today and we should have no problem finding independent RS; if the only examples we can find to support our position are official publications of foreign ministries and intelligence agencies, we should take pause. There is probably good cause to spamblock the sites listed, but we should reach this conclusion solely based on independent RS, not on the basis of the declarations of official agencies of governments engaged in conflict or cold war against the other side. This creates a dangerous precedent. Chetsford (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think the United States government is a reliable source for what constitutes fake news, since it consistently lies itself. Unfortunately, its not possible to factcheck it's most recent claims, but here are a few from the past: spy planes over the Soviet Union, its involvement in the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, babies in incubators killed in Kuwait, the military strength of the Soviet Union, the planned invasion of Grenada, Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda, and the NSA surveillance program. The CIA even has an old article on its website, "When the Government Lies." TFD (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose agree with TFD who makes some good points. Burrobert (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per TFD and WP:GLOBAL. We should not privilege US or EU government sources as being definitive or particularly reliable. NightHeron (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chetsford and TFD. We are an independent encyclopedia, and we do not take cues from any government no matter how well-intentioned it may appear (and the US and EU have not exactly been models of truth as TFD points out). I'm not saying that Russia or China are better (they are probably worse) or that these sources are reliable, but we will need to consider them independently and one at a time. ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. The what-about-ism regarding the U.S. government in many of the posts opposing the proposal is silly and should not be weighed in favor or opposition to whether or not these sources have some level of disclaimer or disallowed use on Wikipedia. If I can read the US State Dept report in the near future, I'll choose to vote.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on reliability of apple fan sources 9to5Mac, AppleInsider, and MacRumors

These sources are all used on the Apple Inc. article as well as other apple related articles such as Beddit. There hasn't really been any discussion on these source's reliablity on RSN apart from this short post and thread, which is why I came here to ask what your guys' thoughts are on these sources and their reliability. X-Editor (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable if considered reliable by RS A cursory search on Google News for the phrase "according to 9to5Mac" finds that its original reporting has been sourced by CNET [175], Ars Technica [176], the Hindustan Times [177], and others. Since it also has a gatekeeping process, a physical presence by which it can be held liable for what it publishes, and my (very cursory) search sees no evidence its reporting has been questioned or discredited by RS, this indicates to me it's RS. If AppleInsider and MacRumors have the same qualities, they should be reliable, too. Chetsford (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Rahul roy is sign Director Aaron Nagar so please ad the detail in aarun nagar wikipedia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmp21btQMtI&list=UUTXmPRRlEkGaQNSsuExg43A

YouTube isn't a reliable source, so the source can't be added to the article in question. X-Editor (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2021

YouTube is typically a publisher and not a source so it's not generally considered "reliable" or "unreliable". ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

True, but in this case, it doesn't look like the most reliable source, which is kinda what I was trying to say. X-Editor (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2021

Is Newsopener.com a reliable source?

It's used at Eton College controversies to source the statement "Lord Bellingham wrote to the Times to say that Old Etonians would be withholding over £2 million in donations to the College as long as Henderson remained in post because of his 'woeful handling of this issue'"[178] (yes, that's the link, nothing to do with Lord Bellingham or Eton, this must be what was intended[179]). Doug Weller talk 15:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I'd say not, but it's straight copyvio from The Times, so the actual statement seems true. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources for noteability of "Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams"

A page on "Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams" (FIRST) was rapidly deleted. In refusing a request to undelete the page Muboshgu wrote "... This does not necessarily mean a suitable article on this topic cannot be created. If it is a notable topic, e.g., multiple reliable, secondary, published sources that are entirely independent of the subject have written about it in substantive detail (not just mere mentions), then a neutrally written article may be possible. ..."

There are references to FIRST that go beyond mere mentions in The Baltimore Sun and The Wall Street Journal. As far as I can see these are both reliable sources. However if two sources is not sufficient to establish notability, then I need advice on the following:

networkworld

networkworld has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is networkworld a reliable source?

The article in question is by Ellen Messmer who is a "senior editor at Network World, an IDG publication and website, where she covers news and technology trends related to information security." According to their About Us page, Network World does not publish contributed articles. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

bluekaizen

bluekaizen has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is bluekaizen a reliable source?

Whether this is reliable or not is probably moot. The link above redirects to sites that my adblocker blocks - please consider my question on this source to be removed. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

elvocero

elvocero has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is elvocero a reliable source?

The full title of the publication is el Vocero de Puerto Rico. According to google translate "el Vocero" is "the Spokesman". This 2017 article was by José Carmona who, according to the 2019 Conócenos (know us) page, "Graduated Cum Laude from the Universidad del Sagrado Corazón, he has 20 years of journalistic experience in the United States and Puerto Rico covering issues of economy, finance, technology, and the automotive industry." In 2019 there were 25 people on the "know us" page and 18 today. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

internethealthreport

internethealthreport has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is internethealthreport a reliable source?

The Internet Health Report is an annual publication of the Mozilla Foundation published in English, German, Spanish, French and Portugese. This article was in the 2018 report and the read me page from that year stated "A prototype of this report was published in January 2017 and was followed by an open, public discussion about metrics, several meetings with allies, and the establishment of a smaller “Report Coalition” to support content creation." Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

tradearabia

tradearabia has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is tradearabia a reliable source?

Under "About Us" at the bottom of every page on the tradearabia.com website there are two links to the tradearabia contact page titled "Contact" and "Feedback". Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the above are reliable sources but would appreciate feedback before proceeding. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources can be reliable, but to show an article is notable they have to be independent too. These are two different things. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell all of the articles I am asking about are independent of the subject and I have not found any evidence to the contrary. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

References

The Bahá'í Faith: The Emerging Global Religion

The following book is written by William S. Hatcher, a mathematician (by training) who served on National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada (1983–91). The book is published by Baha'i Publishing Trust. Is it a reliable source on the history of Baha'i Faith? Taha (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hatcher, W.S.; Martin, J.D. (2002). The Bahá'í Faith: The Emerging Global Religion. Baha'i Publishing. ISBN 978-1-931847-06-3. Retrieved 2021-01-02.

Given his obvious COI, no I would say not, nor the facts its an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

In-universe, probably promotional source, so likely not. There ought to be plenty of histories of the religion from without; generally more reliable independent sources. GPinkerton (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with using such a source judiciously -- obviously not for self-serving or exceptional claims. Do you have examples of where it's being used? Do you object to them? --JBL (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:JayBeeEll: It has been used in Fa.Wiki article on Baha'ullah. They usually have hagiography style, preaching the orthodoxy put forward by the Baha'i organizations without any serious criticism. They write usually in praise of the Baha'ullah's actions and message and difficulties he has endured during his mission. Taha (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Taha. This is en.wiki; no discussion that we have here has any bearing on the policies or content at fa.wiki (and vice-versa). --JBL (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:JayBeeEll: I did not ask for a binding consensus either; just wanted to get more comments. We do have our own stricter requirements for sources in fa.wiki on this topic. Taha (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:JayBeeEllThe book is used to summarize the content of the letters of Baha'ullah to the Pope and some rulers and monarchs of the time which are not found in other sources. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have moved your comment to the correct location. If we're still talking about things happening on fa.wiki, I don't have anything to add (I do not speak Farsi and would not edit there); if we're now talking about en.wiki, a link to a relevant article would be great. --JBL (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The source is valid. First of all the first publisher of the book is Harper & Row which is a credible publisher, and secondly the book is used to summarize the content of the letters of Baha'ullah to the Pope and some rulers and monarchs of the time which are not found in other sources; this is not a contested theme that different sources have different opinions on. Finally even Baha'i Publishing Trust is a valid publisher due to WP:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Policies are pretty clear that it's a reliable source and can be used in context even if it has bias. WP:BIASED:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

Also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It depends what the book is sourcing. If you're looking for a way to throw out Hatcher and not use it because it carries a Baha'i bias, someone could argue that Denis MacEoin and Juan Cole are not neutral and should not be used because they are clearly biased against Baha'is based on personal conflicts. Even more so with Iranian government sources that spread intentional disinformation. If the assertion being referenced by Taherzadeh is contested in other reliable sources, then sometimes you can mention the sources and the differences in sources. WP:WIKIVOICE:

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@user:Cuñado ِYour comparison of J. Cole and W. Hatcher is an instance of false analogy. Juan Cole is an academically trained historian and religious scholar. Hatcher's formal education is on mathematics and he wrote on Baha'i subject because of his Baha'i leadership. Second, in fa.wiki, to prevent edit wars, we have banned the use of both sources published inside Iran (except Encyclopedia Islamica) and sources by the senior Baha'i leaders (like Adib Taherzadeh). Of course, the discussion here is not binding for the fa.wiki. Taha (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this section into a battleground, but I would really appreciate some clarity on WP:RSE#Religious sources from an experienced editor, since it is coming up repeatedly for Baha'i articles. Based on my post further down on this noticeboard (see here), I got the impression that religious sources of the sort mentioned in WP:RSE were useful to establish the perspective of believers in a given religious viewpoint, not to reliably source scientific or historical fact. Have I understood correctly? I also want to note that WP:RSE is an essay, not a Wikipedia guideline. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:Gazelle55 That was my understanding too. We should not use religious sources for historical facts. Taha (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Taha Juan Cole has a degree, but he is absolutely not a neutral source. He has a negative bias just like Baha'i authors typically have a positive bias and it would be inappropriate to describe him as a neutral academic observer. If you intend to include Cole then Hatcher should be allowed and both treated according to the policies I quoted above. If you want to raise the standard of sources, then find someone like Margit Warburg. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Gazelle55 and Taha.
just like Well, no, obviously not "just like" -- adherents of a religion have a very particular problem serving as commentators on their own religion that is not similar to any problems that might be held by anyone else (except maybe apostates). --JBL (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, JayBeeEll. Though to clarify on behalf of Cuñado, Juan Cole and Denis MacEoin are apostates from the Baha'i Faith. They were Baha'i scholars who were essentially forced out of the religion because they were perceived as deviating from the orthodoxy of the religion in their work and have since written critically about it. I believe that is what Cuñado meant by them having personal conflicts. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks -- I've read Cole's blogging on and off over the years, but never picked up that fact about him. --JBL (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In the case of Cole, he accidentally sent an email to the wrong listserv describing his plans to covertly subvert Baha'i institutions, then when he was confronted about it he resigned and wrote a subversive piece attacking Baha'is with unprofessional accusations of sexual misconduct, bigotry, and authoritarianism. "deviating from the orthodoxy" had very little to do with it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The ill-fated email was about getting reformist views out in a non-confrontational way despite Baha'i leaders' repeated actions to quash them, not about the broader accusations he made later. Anyone can read it here. His articles were published in respected academic journals and so are WP:RS. I agree the picture they paint may be exaggerated, but we achieve balance by contrasting with other sources. Gazelle55 (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@user:Cuñado Your story misses the original cause for him to deviate from the Baha'i orthodoxy. Why did he want to deviate from it? Also, does unprofessional mean baseless and without any evidence? It is a vague word. Taha (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Dunning–Kruger effect

Hi editors, I came to the subject article on Dunning–Kruger effect as a normal reader. While reading, I found a source that I consider to be unreliable. The source is number 4, "What the Dunning–Kruger effect Is and Isn't", URL here [180].

I note that this article was protected in April 2020 due to disruptive edits. I very intensely want to avoid an edit war. Before editing, I want to check with you experts and make sure that I am correct that this source is unreliable and can be removed.

I posted about this source on the talk page. Thank you very much for your help.Jarhed (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The WP:Burden is on Wikiuser100 (or whoever is defending the source, the talkpage is indented weirdly or missing a signature) to prove it is reliable. My quick searching shows Tal Yarkoni to be a Research Associate Professor. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi thanks for replying. I am not sure what an academic credential for an individual has to do with a reliable source. Could you please elaborate?Jarhed (talk)

The source is a personal blog post (WP:BLOG), so it was a good idea to investigate it. As such it can be considered that author's opinion. The author's competence field matters (emphasis mine): "Research Associate Professor Department of Psychology University of Texas at Austin". Another good sign is that his post cites his sources, including the 1999 paper he's writing about. If I understand, Yarkoni argues that the paper doesn't support the popular misconception that incompetent people believe they are better than competent people, just that they overestimated their own skills (the overestimation tends to be less for more competent people). If I read the 1999 paper abstract, it doesn't contradict that conclusion. Considering all these I tend to find the source usable about the misconception. If it's challenged by other good sources then it could ultimately be attributed and presented as this psychologist's understanding of the paper (but that might not be necessary at first glance). —PaleoNeonate – 00:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that challenges to the Dunning-Kruger effect are not valid. I am appealing to undue weight. The subject effect is well known in the behavioral sciences. My problem is that a personal blog post is being used to imply that the entire theory has been discredited and that is simply not true.Jarhed (talk)

What's going on here, User:Jarhed? You knew before you posted here that I had responded in full (with numerous cites) to your broadside on this matter (regarding an author and paper that had been introduced some time in mid-2017 and over 400 edits before I ever arrived at the Dunning-Kruger effect article) at that page's Talk page here, including detailing the Yarkoni work's citation:

• in the thesis of a graduate student at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School at Monterrey, California (Disaster Threat and the Dunning-Kruger Effect), which investigated the occurrence of the Dunning-Kruger effect in individual decision making during disasters for its impact on U.S. homeland security policymaking;
• at the Psychology and Neuroscience Stack Exchange in answer to the question: Does the Dunning-Kruger effect still work the same if the incompetent person is aware of this effect? by a lecturer in psychology at Deakin University in Australia;
• being quoted at length at the Chart of the Day feature at The Atlantic the very day it was published, July 7, 2010, here; and
• cited and directly hyperlinked in the Science section of National Geographic.com "Not Exactly Rocket Science" by that section's author, Ed Yong, under News/science/writing here, lauding its "big caveats on the Dunning-Kruger effect". Yet you post here as though none of that ever happened.

Thank you User:Emir of Wikipedia and User:PaleoNeonate for your contributions. I have corrected the errant indenting I had inadvertantly created in my single post at the Dunning-Kruger effect Talk page (linked above), eliminating any confusion it might have introduced. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi Wikiuser100, your response to my criticism was composed from other articles that are not reliable, such as from Stack Exchange. In the article, there is substantial criticism introduced through unreliable source (4), a personal blog post by so called author Tal Yarkoni and his blog. I intend to remove this unreliable source and everything that references it. I am here on the reliable sources noticeboard to get some expert opinions about this. I apologize if my effort to get expert opinions offends you.Jarhed (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yarkoni's blog post seems like it meets SPS imo. (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

SPS Self published sources Jarhed (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Music surveys

Recently on Please Please Me (song) I attempted to include relevant information about the spelling "Beattles" being on the 17 January 1964 and 24 January 1964 WLS Silver Dollar Surveys. However, Sundayclose objected to sources such as oldiesloon or www.las-solanas.com as being "self-published", even though oldiesloon is currently referenced just a few sentences earlier, even in the very same article and in many other articles, and without providing any alternative source.

I see no evidence that either source is "self-published". For example, I see no means by which anyone could contribute to either site, at least in any direct sense. After reading suggested articles that supposedly deal with such things, I am now more confused than I have ever been.

Clearly the surveys exist. I have a copy of each. The problem seems to be finding a source for such surveys without running afoul of a myriad of possible objections from Wikipedia editors. At this point I have no idea who to ask about what.

Any ideas come to mind?98.149.97.245 (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The edit in question asserts that the spelling "Beattles," which the article notes was used on the WLS Silver Dollar Surveys in 1963, was also used for two weeks on Silver Dollar Surveys in 1964 with respect to a different song, "I Want To Hold Your Hand." Regardless of the reliability of the source, this seems like a minor point that is only peripherally related to the subject of the article. John M Baker (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources are, in fact, self-published. They are personal websites. At least one of them invites readers to contribute. What is the basis for claiming that a personal website is not self-published? Regarding your copy of the survey, where did you get it? Is it in a publication? Sundayclose (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"Regardless of the reliability of the source, this seems like a minor point that is only peripherally related to the subject of the article."

The point is that the spelling "Beattles" on the WLS Silver Dollar Surveys carried over to "I Want To Hold Your Hand", even after the spelling had been corrected on the record label for "Please Please Me".

From Sundayclose to me:

"I assume you mean these photos: http://www.las-solanas.com/surveys/WLS/WLS_1964-01-17_1.jpg [and http://www.las-solanas.com/surveys/WLS/WLS_1964-01-24_1.jpg] . On this you need more than my opinion as I am not sure whether the links to the photos would be considered reliable since the source on which they are posted is not reliable. It's certainly better than just linking the website's transcription of the surveys.

"Post the links at WP:RSN and see what others think.

"You have to be patient; you're not going to get a lot of comments quickly. But if you get some support over the next couple of weeks and no serious opposition, that would be good enough for me. If you don't get much response there after a couple of weeks, another option later is a WP:RFC at Talk:Please Please Me (song). That probably will generate some attention. By the way, another editor pointed out a completely different issue: whether the misspelling in the surveys is notable enough to be included in a discussion of the misspelling by Vee-Jay. I don't have an opinion either way on that." Sundayclose (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Your thoughts?98.149.97.245 (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of an article in the Washington Post has been questioned

The issue at hand is to determine the reliability of a Washington Post newspaper article and, by association, a sentence, "Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation", within the article.

Your feedback about <The reliability of an article in the Washington Post has been questioned> would be appreciated on this talk page discussion where the disagreement about the reliability of the Washington Post article and its contained sentence was initiated.

I have made a post to the WP:VERIFY page requesting that the "policy" concerning "Newspaper and magazine blogs" WP:NEWSBLOG be revised as it is too vague to be useful in resolving the issue concerning the reliability of the Washington Post newspaper article.

Although the WP:NEWSBLOG policy is not to be resolved at "Reliable Sources", here is some background concerning the difficulty that prompts my request.

The WP:NEWSBLOG policy is:

Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.

The issue with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy is that it does not define "blog" with any precision. Simply saying a "blog" is an "online column" isn't much of a definition. Yes, it refers to the Wikipedia article Blog, but that is whatever Wikipedia editors decide it might be, whenever they decide to alter it with having the constraints involved when writing a Wikipedia policy.

It seems that a definition of what is considered a "blog" would include, but not be limited to, the key elements of a blog, such as:

Immediate access to readers

Highly interactive

No set deadline or publishing schedule

No fixed length

Relies on comments

More casual in tone

Continuous conversation

Here are the particulars concerning my "Reliability" dilemma:

I have had an encounter with @PackMecEng: who claims that a Washington Post article was not creditable because it was from a "blog".

A link to the article is promoted by the Washington Post on a page called Morning Mix - Stories from all over. It explains itself as "The Washington Post's Morning Mix blog covers stories from all over the nation and world."

The Washington Post calls a collection of links to some of its newspaper articles a "blog". It is an unfortunate name to define its genre. It isn't a "blog", it doesn't look like a blog, it doesn't smell like a blog, and it does not act like a blog.

The article in question is:

• Elfrink, Tim (August 14, 2020). "'Do you regret at all, all the lying you've done?': A reporter's blunt question to Trump goes unanswered". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 31, 2020.

PackMecEng asserts that because the "source" of this article on the Washington Post website is called a "blog", it is not a reliable/creditable article. PackMecEng continues to argue this position and refuses to be collaborative in working to obtain a resolution as PackMecEng values only PackMecEng's opinion. PackMecEng particularly dislikes and discredits this sentence from the newspaper article:

Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation.

which I want to use in the lead for the article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump.

PackMecEng has posited various arguments, but in the end, the final position is that the article is from a "blog" and is therefore not reliable. I disagree. The circuitous argument that ensued concerning the news article's reliability can be found on this talk page discussion

Here is a DIFF that shows the first time that my edit was altered by PackMecEng. The sentence, "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation", was deleted.

PackMecEng's edit is disingenuous as the reference to the disputed "not creditable" newspaper article remains for the edited sentence. The edited sentence contains other information from the disputed "not creditable" newspaper article.

Please help me by determining the reliability of this article so I can end, one way or another, the argument which PackMecEng continues to prolong.

Osomite ^hablemos 06:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a neutral question I think this is a problematic question since it is far from neutral. Additionally, you are disparaging a respected editor. PackMecEng may be outspoken on some topics but they are not prone to trying to draw out arguments. Springee (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think one issue is the sentence, "Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" ('prodigious' compared to what)? I think the wording could be improved because this is a somewhat subjective assertion that, unless tweaked to be more objectively worded, probably shouldn't be in wikivoice. (t · c) buidhe 22:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I think "a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is a fair paraphrasing when it involves someone who managed to make over 20,000 newsworthy false claims in 1,267 days.[181]. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The objective claim is that Trump made "over 20,000 newsworthy false claims in 1,267 days". The subjective claim is that this constitutes being "a prodigious spreader of misinformation". (t · c) buidhe 00:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: That's an average of 15.79 newsworthy lies per day. What's your numeric threshold for "prodigious"? I think any sane person would agree that's WAY over the minimum frequency required to use the adjective. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, Yes, and any sane person would agree that genocide is an evil action. But Wikipedia does not; read WP:WIKIVOICE. (t · c) buidhe 00:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The phrasing "prodigious spreader of misinformation" is not the kind of thing we say in wiki-voice, but there doesn't appear to be a reliability issue with the source. It's a non-opinion item published by a national newspaper of record that exercises editorial control over their website; in this case, "blog" is like "News in Brief". XOR'easter (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree that this is not a blog article as NEWSBLOG concerns itself with, but it is subjective use of "prodigious" in wikivoice that is a problem. --Masem (t) 05:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

This whole discussion is kind of stupid, given that one can just as readily cite the 20,000 number without having to worry about whether the other comment is editorializing. This really isn't the hill anyone should be committing to die upon. Mangoe (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Local Government Information Services

In Illinois, conservative operative Dan Proft has set up various political publications that take on the style and format of newspapers, obstinately to hide their true purpose as political advertisements. The main umbrella for these publications is Local Government Information Services which as of writing includes

• Carbondale Reporter
• Chambana Sun
• Chicago City Wire
• DuPage Policy Journal
• DeKalb Times
• East Central Reporter
• Galesburg Reporter
• Grundy Reporter
• Illinois Valley Times
• Kane County Reporter
• Kankakee Times
• Kendall County Times

• Lake County Gazette
• Macon Reporter
• McHenry Times
• McLean County Times
• Metro East Sun
• North Cook News
• North Egypt News
• NW Illinois News
• Peoria Standard
• Prairie State Wire
• Quincy Reporter

• Rock Island Today
• Rockford Sun
• Sangamon Sun
• SE Illinois News
• South Central Reporter
• South Cook News
• Southern Illinois News
• SW Illinois News
• West Central Reporter
• West Cook News
• Will County Gazette

As documented in this article from the The State Journal-Register, the political advertisements run negative content about Democratic candidates ("Democrat X eats babies") giving no right of response to those candidates while running vague upbeat stories about Republican candidates ("Republican Y wants to help everyone") that lift content word for word from said Republican's promotional materials. Illinois Playbook, a publication of Politico has a summary of the politicized coverage coming from the various publications. An example of this being used against a Republican that Proft's organization did not prefer can be found here.

The reason I raise this issue Rich Miller, a longtime journalist covering the Illinois General Assembly, estimated in a 2018 article published in the The News-Gazette that 90% of the articles about the 2018 Illinois House of Representatives election and the 2018 Illinois Senate election were from one of the political publications. I believe this creates the risk of such politicized information being used in articles about Illinois elections and in the biographies of Illinois elected officials.

The publications include some non-political content that appears to be pulled from public sources and then written by algorithms such as "Meeting of Cityville City Council to Occur on Smarch 32nd" or "Bill Smith Pulled 4 Democratic Ballots In 5 Cycles". I believe I may have used such a publication in the past for party affiliations of township officials. I have no reason to believe that the information I used was wrong. However, considering the amount of political advertisements versus apolitical content, I believe we should have some caveats on how these publications can be used on Wikipedia.

Thoughts on this would be appreciated.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

Wow! That is a ton of sources to try to track. I am reluctant to state that they should not be used at all, but my impression is more that they should be treated like opinion pieces or whatever the general consensus is regarding FoxNews. - Location (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Probably Unreliable But Requires Further Examination Media report on media, often critically, and we should be cautious about deprecating any source on the basis of one or two articles that question aspects of another media outlet. That said, based on my cursory examination it doesn't appear RS consider these RS. When I run the phrases "Kanakee Times reports" and "according to the Kanakee Times" (as well as a few other of these outlets) through Google News I find they're only sourced to other outlets on this list. However, in a few other cases there was some limited outside sourcing from independent RS. For example, the Metro East Sun is cited by The Telegraph [182] and the Sangamon Sun has been cited by the Journal Star (Peoria) [183]. The whole thing seems fishy but I think it will require a very detailed examination versus a blanket scarlet lettering of 30 different outlets. Chetsford (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Clarification is that they are not thirty outlets. It's one outfit that publishes under 30 different names. I only felt obliged to provide enough sources to name my point. There are more articles on more unique incidents from other outlets that call attention to what is literally fake news in some cases. As for their citations by the Alton Telegraph and Journal Star, those are public figures from the Illinois State Board of Elections and whatever publishes the pension data. It's the kind of issue I am talking about. They mix in legitimate information with politicized nonsense. I'm not sure how Wikipedia policy and the editors would want to deal with that.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

We could probably do with a Wikipedia article about these publications (or the groups that fund them like Think Freely Media). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, even if you ban all these domains what is to stop the operator from just switching the names around and continue? "South Cook News" becomes "South Cook Times" and "Southern Illinois News" the "Metro Southern Illinois Telegraph" etc. It's not an easy problem to solve. Are these sites frequently cited on Wikipedia or is it more of a theoretical problem though? ImTheIP (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Crux (Online Newspaper)

I recommended that Crux (online newspaper) be added a reliable source, since I could not find any mention of it here. https://cruxnow.com/ While editorially it is aligned with the Catholic Church, have a viewpoint does not make a source unreliable and most news items seem largely free of a very biased pov. They are regularly cited by The New York Times and Washington Post for information on the church and does not have a record of a failed fact-check, at least from what I have seen. What do people think? 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Recommend Decline. This would be its first time being listed, so it would not be added to WP:RSP in any case. The request does not specifically state what coverage Crux is being proposed for, and while the article on Crux indicates a small number of times that current WP:RS have referenced the site, if something is covered by Crux, chances are there are more solid WP:RS that would be found to cover the information. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean in regards to Church affairs or others things covered by them, which I mentioned above. I admit to being rather new at adding sources, but I thought it would be good discussion to have. Also I am a little confused by your final statement do you think that it is not solid WP:RS and if so why? Also could you sign your posts? Thanks. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Failing to sign was my mistake, I copied my comment back as it had an edit conflict with a comment further up.

Regarding the source, please provide the specific wording you wish to use it for and the page you want to have it included on. Regarding WP:RSP, "For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard.". I suspect that in the case of Crux, it either is (a) not up to the standards of WP:RS (being a mouthpiece for the Catholic Church rather than an independent entity), or (b) it is a "niche" site that has not seen enough usage to have been discussed. "If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion." IHateAccounts (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Crux is not a "mouthpiece of the Catholic Church" they have had editorials that have taken issues with the Vatican and have provided numerous viewpoints on items in the Church such as the Amazon Synod, German Synod path, and others. It is not owned by the Church, it simply agrees with them on some issues like abortion, aid for the poor, and immigration. I want it to be added to the list of reliable sources listed here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources or where reliable sources are listed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

IHateAccounts is correct in that we don't necessarily have a running list of reliable sources. WP:RSP lists sources that are repeatedly the subject of reliability discussions either here, or elsewhere, and summarizes the consensus or views on those sources. The non-inclusion of a source on RSP doesn't mean that source is unreliable or unusable, only that it has not been the subject of repeated discussion. Chetsford (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable for Reporting on Catholicism; Use with Caution on Matters Related to Church Governance It is considered reliable by WP:RS as evidenced by its reporting being cited by NBC News [184], USA Today [185], ABC News [186], etc. It has a gatekeeping process and a physical presence by which it can be held liable for what it publishes. It is staffed by persons with conventional training in journalism and backgrounds in secular reporting with RS, for example John L. Allen Jr. and Inés San Martín. There is no evidence it has a newsgathering capability that would enable it to reliably report on general news, or matters not directly related to Catholicism and should not be used as a source for those subjects (i.e. elections in Thailand, zoning regulations in Fresno, etc.). According to a recent editorial statement its reporting on certain matters is done in a way that doesn't "undercut the papacy" [187]. In addition, one of its dozen or so writers appears to be an ordained priest, meaning he is part of the Church's government. Crux should, therefore, be used with caution when reporting on church governance; unextraordinary claims such as direct quotes and basic Who/What/When seems fine while analytical and investigatory reporting on church governance should not be sourced to Crux unless it can be corroborated by other RS. This is the same standard I'd expect we should use for Voice of America (but which we generally don't). Chetsford (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand that, I just thought it would be helpful to use for people. Also on an edit I was making some questioned it as a source, so I thought going here would be helpful to see what others think. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, it seems perfectly fine for WP:BLPs. "I thought going here would be helpful to see what others think." You thought right! This is the place to go. Chetsford (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Your reading seems fair, but I disagree about the Church governance part. Priest like him are generally pretty low level and do not really have much say in the running of the Vatican or church bodies around the world and there are plenty of such low-ranking priest that none the less take stances that upset Church leaders, but they still remain where they are. Also I think we can add them as reliable on reporting for the Eastern Orthodox Church based on some of these articles. [188], [189], [190], [191], [192]. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your statement about a priest being fairly low-level, however, I'm inclined to believe an ordained priest would be unable to weigh journalistic neutrality as a higher ethos than papal infallibility. But that's just my 0.02 and we may have to agree to disagree on this point. Some other editors may weigh-in differently. And, yes, I agree with you they would be fine for reporting on church governance in non-Latin Catholicism, like Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, etc. My comment on church governance was intended only to refer to the church in Rome; I may have expressed myself imperfectly. Chetsford (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: It appears that the discussion involved is at Talk:October–December_2020_Polish_protests#Undue_weight_from_weak_source and there are further issues for both the wording and sourcing regarding this edit [193]. Problem #1 is that the source provided by 3Kingdoms doesn't support the edit, even before we get to the question of whether a Catholic-Church-affiliated newspaper is reporting accurately on a situation where the issues raised by protesters, at least in part, have to do with hardliner / ultra-extremist Catholic control of government and the resulting policies towards women's rights. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the loaded words used above. You misread the discussion, I removed violence, once I could not find examples to justify it. I used the source however to support acts of vandalism by the protestors, give more context to a speech by the deputy prime minster and the reaction of the Church to the protest. If you wish to discuss this please move to that talk page. Finally you don't seem to understand how reliable sources work, having some form of bias does not mean a source can not be used. By your logic NYT, WP, the Guardian, the New Republic, etc can not be used to discuss the 2020 election in any regard since they endorsed Biden and cannot be objective. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"having some form of bias does not mean a source can not be used", but an overwhelming bias may very well taint a source's reliability. As Chetsford notes, a Catholic-affiliated site, with an "editorial statement its reporting on certain matters is done in a way that doesn't "undercut the papacy"", probably isn't reporting very reliably in this instance given the Catholic Church's entanglements with certain *ahem* elements in the Polish government concerning certain policies being protested by the populace. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no "overwhelming bia" in the article in fact there is no pov, numerous other articles about the protests that are neutral [194], [195], [196]. The statement of not undercutting the papacy is meant to refer to the far-right anti-Francis crowd. There is no difference between Crux and the examples I listed above, if anything they are less biased. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms: There's a MAJOR flaw in your evaluation of Crux as a source there, because all three of the links you just provided are WP:SYNDICATED stories from the Associated Press that Crux has merely republished. They establish essentially nothing for reliability of Crux itself.

The other one you tried to cite was syndicated from Catholic News Service. Thus far, you've not provided anything to indicate that Crux provides anything of independent value at all... and I would have severe reservations about citing CNS as reliable in any case. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

What you posted makes no sense. Crux labels articles from the associated press where as others have that and a writer who works for them here is are three pages of examples [[197]]. You reservations on Crux and Catholic News Service has no basis, in fact it seems to be entirely based on the old anti-Catholic belief that a Catholic can't be independent of the Pope and does whatever he commands without question or that you simply don't like what the Church teaches thus they can't be objective. In any case what you think about the Church has no bearing on this, numerous sources on [198] look through and you see numerous partisan sources like slate. reason, and rolling stone. All of these are more opinion based than Crux. Since you have yet to explain this difference and you have not provided anything to support you objections. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This shouldn't be added to WP:RSP. Clearly this is just too minor a source for that. I agree with Chetsford's assessment. Springee (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment/question. Can anyone find this publication indexed anywhere? It doesn't seem to have an ISSN (see [199]) and I didn't see anything in WorldCat. Doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on reliability, but they seem a bit hard to track down organization-wise. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Can't find much sorry about that your best bet is their website [200] and maybe look up the Boston Globe since they used to own it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Baháʼí journals

Hi, hope you're doing well. I've been directed here from the Teahouse. My question is about WP:RS but also about WP:RSE. I'll just copy my post from there.

At WP:RS, it says:

Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

On the other hand, at WP:RSE, it says:

In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject.

The Baháʼí Faith is a small-to-medium-sized religion and there are some academic works on it, but a far greater number of articles written by Baháʼís in Baháʼí journals that aren't peer-reviewed by non-Baháʼí academics. For example, at Baháʼí Faith and science#Existence of ether, there is a quote from the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal about how the Baháʼí scriptures are compatible with modern physics. Would mainstream physicists agree? We don't know because they haven't written about it. Based on the above quote from WP:RS, I would think the material should be removed. On the other hand based on the note from WP:RSE, I would think it is okay to include. What should I do?

Extra note: the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal is run by the Association for Baháʼí Studies (specifically the Australian branch), which works closely with the Baháʼí religious leadership of Australia, and everything submitted to it is reviewed and approved by the Baháʼí religious leadership. There are no non-Baháʼís on the editorial board, nor are they welcome to join the board. So I would normally think it shouldn't be cited, except perhaps to say "Baháʼí author XYZ has argued..." However, after an editor mentioned WP:RSE I am now uncertain. Is it okay to use a journal outside the scholarly mainstream because it shows opinion within a religion? That's what the excerpt from WP:RSE I shared above seems to say, but I'm concerned this would introduce a lot of pro-Baháʼí POV. There are also some other Baháʼí journals with similar issues. Gazelle55 (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• In my view, the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal would be perfectly acceptable to source information on doctrinal matters. However, our WP:FRINGE guideline establishes standards for "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". This guideline will impact articles on the theology of any religion; the Baháʼí concept of aether, even if not directly challenged by any RS in the field of physics, is definitely not a mainstream, scientific view. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED so there is no obligation to suppress or avoid describing the Baháʼí concept of aether but it should not be done in Wikipedia's voice and should be attributed to the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal, specifically or - if it represents the consensus of Baháʼí - then the religion generally. (At the same time, we should be careful not to independently challenge the Baháʼí view by describing the mainstream view of physics within the specific section of the Baháʼí article as - unless such a juxtaposition is made in RS, which you've seemed to indicate it is not - that would be WP:SYNTH. At a certain point we have to rely on the intelligence of our readers.) TL;DR - I think the use of the quote in the article in the way it's done is fine. Chetsford (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks Chetsford, that makes sense. Gazelle55 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Rollcall a reliable source for Rob Portman's wealth?

While Rollcall.com may be a reliable source for some things, it's page ranking the wealth of the 115th United States Congress at the beginning of 2018[201] (shown as 2021 in Portman's article) says:

"While these reports open a window into the financial position of every member, they are far from comprehensive or exact. Members need only report their financial positions in 11 broad ranges of value, starting with less than $1,000 and maxing out at $50 million or more. And they do not need to report the values of their principal residences or their contents, the biggest assets for most Americans. Liabilities open during any part of 2016 are also counted. What’s more, the policing of the accuracy of these reports appears to be spotty. The consequence for making an obvious mistake or omission is generally a letter from the clerk of the House or the Senate Ethics Committee encouraging an amended filing." Doug Weller talk 07:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say this disclaimer reflects well on Roll Call and poorly on US federal financial disclosure law. Here, Roll Call is specifically pointing out a defect in the requirements of the financial disclosure, and noting to the reader that—because of the limits of these disclosure requirements—the data cited may not give a full picture. This indicates a careful editorial policy on Roll Call's part. As for use in the article, I think we should qualify the statement in the article the same way as Roll Call does, if we use it at all. So, something like, according to Roll Call's ranking of the wealth of congresspeople, which relies on disclosure reports filed by members of Congress … etc. In general, I've always seen Roll Call as an excellent source for US federal politics, and this article confirms that prior as opposed to calling it into question. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and I've revised my section heading as I wrote that first before I looked at the site more. I don't think we should use it, giving the disclaimer is complicated and almost pointless. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say reliable especially because of such a disclaimer. Though you should probably use the numbers as a "at least this much" sort of inclusion, since the disclaimer entails the numbers being the minimum amount of wealth known. Silverseren^C 19:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

When can we use The Social Crediter published by the far-right and anti-Semitic Australian League of Rights

I didn't expect to be back here quite so soon, but just ran into it being used for this edit[202] in Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory. I removed it as clearly not a reliable source for that edit. It's used in other articles.[203]. Other than for itself, I can't think of any reason to use it at all. Here's a link to the journal.[204] Doug Weller talk 07:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Is www.caucaz.com (now defunct) a reliable source?

Hello, i am engaged in a discussion with some Baha'i editors at this page. They claim in this article that Musa Nagiyev is a Baha'i. The source that they are citing is a website www.caucaz.com, which is now defunct and it states in its about-us page that it accepts synopsis from individuals. Apart from this, the article on that website is written by one Baha'i, Azer Jafarov - and he cites his own book as a source for that claim. This guy (Azer Jafarov) works in the National Office of the Baha'i faith in Azerbaijan. He does not have any academic record and he does not provide any source in his book for his claims about Musa Nagiyev's accepting the Baha'i Faith. I would like to know if this claim about "Musa Nagiyev" can be kept with some conditions or outrightly removed. Thank you.Serv181920 (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment – I am one of the editors who defended the source and I am not Baha'i. It appears based on this that Caucaz.com normally publishes experts and therefore presumably has some level of editorial oversight. (That source is in turn produced by experts, see here.) Gazelle55 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Is Middle East Eye a reliable source for contentious claims about a BLP

Two Middle East Eye articles have recently been added as sources to the Douglas Murray (author) (fixed link) article [[205]], [[206]]. Is MEE a RS and/or DUE for contentious claims about a BLP subject? Are their OpEd articles considered acceptable? Springee (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You are referring to Douglas Murray the author. Contentious = likely to cause disagreement or argument. Any negative statement about a person is likely to be contentious to that person and her supporters. Who is doing the contending in this case? Burrobert (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the author. Sorry, I didn't realize the page was Douglas Murray (author). I believe standard practice is any negative/disparaging content that is associated with a BLP subject to be contentious. The first link is being used as a reference to a book Murray wrote so if MEE is a RS and generally considered DUE then I think that would be OK. While scornful it doesn't attack Murray directly. The second link is an OpEd article and is being used to support a claim that Murray is associated with the far-right. My primary concern is the OpEd part though claiming someone is associated with far-right, alt-right, white nationalist etc are all what I would consider to be value laden labels. At an overall level is MEE reliable (it does at least report to have an editorial structure) and second is it normally DUE? My feeling is probably RS but I can't say if it should be given WEIGHT. The OpEd article is not acceptable because it's an OpEd being used to support negative associations about a BLP. Springee (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't found any editorial board on the site also it regularly publishes fake news [207] and hate [208] --Shrike (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It is hard to find information about the editorial structure of MEE. I couldn’t find it on the website. We know that former Guardian journalist David Hearst is the website’s editor-in-chief. Some information about staff is contained in this (not particularly positive) article [209]. Regarding MEE’s reliability, no reliability problems are mentioned on our page for the website. The two articles provided by Shrike do not mention specific examples of unreliability. The Arabnews article says something that strengthens MEE’s claims to being GR: "many human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, use MEE’s articles as a point of reference, as do the New York Times, the Washington Post and Germany’s Deutsche Welle". The main issue raised in the Arabnews article relates to a disagreement about its focus. The JewishNews article is upset with what it believes is MEE’s connection with Hamas. Burrobert (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm always way of MEE, which publishes some good stuff and some flawed stuff. The article about the book seems somewhere between an opinion piece and a book review and so could maybe be used with attribution if we think that its author, Ian Almond, Professor of World Literatures, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University in Qatar, is sufficiently expert or noteworthy for this to be due. The other piece is more reportage and it's by Nafeez Ahmed, who is quite a controversial journalist, so I would consider only using it in a way like this: "his work has also been linked to the alt-right by Nafeez Ahmed". I think the alt-right claim and footnotes should be moved out of the lede and into the body, and the Islamophobic claim should be summarised in the lead and detailed properly in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the Ian AlmondNafeez Ahmed article says it's an Op-Ed I don't see why we would include it, especially since it is being used to support a contentious claim about Murray. Springee (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Corrected Springee (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

the Almond article is published under "opinion" but is clearly a book review. A detailed book review by a well-known Georgetown professor is hardly undue. As for the "contentious claim" you keep bringing up - in today's polarized media environment there is little that is not contentious. Noteduck (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I cut-pasted the wrong name. The Ahmed article is the one I meant as it was the Op-Ed. I'm still concerned about the claims that MEE is a propaganda outfit. At this point I wouldn't be OK with citing anything to a MEE article. Is Ian Almond's opinion of the book available through other sources? Springee (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

To make my point, let's compare Almond's review to Rod Liddle's[210], which also appears on Murray's page. Rod Liddle has a history of scandal (just read his page!) has had a complaint upheld against him by the Press Complaints Commission and has pleaded guilty to Contempt of Court in the course of his reporting. He also, quite unlike Almond, appears to have zero specific expertize in issues surrounding Islam and political Islam. Should we then exclude this passage on Murray's page:

Rod Liddle of The Times called the book "a brilliant, important and profoundly depressing book".

I think we can all agree this is silly - the claim isn't written in Wiki's voice, and Liddle is writing in The Times which is a well-established media outlet. The point I'm making is that my ongoing complaint about the Murray page is that sources perceived as unfavorable to Murray are being subject to an impossibly high evidentiary threshold. Just because the Ian Almond review is highly critical of Murray's book does not mean it has no place in the article Noteduck (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a basic sourcing issue. Wikipedia, like it or not, says material published in things like The New York Times, etc are generally given more weight than material published in sources with less reputation. If Ian Almond's view is highly significant is it shared by other sources? Why would it only be published in this source. I know this can be frustrating as I've been on the other side of this sort of thing. Springee (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"is it shared by other sources" - yes. The points made by Almond are shared by the other negative reviews of The Strange Death of Europe, or did you not look at them? Again, this is part of a frustrating trend of articles critical of Murray being held to an impossibly high evidentiary threshold for inclusion. Absent stronger rebuttals please do not remove this material from Murray's page Noteduck (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is shared by other sources yet deprecated. In this case Almond's review is not shared by other sources. The other article is clearly labeled opinion. Springee (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics for UFO claims

• Popular Mechanics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the magazine

This popscience magazine publishes interviews, press releases, etc. It has often been used on WP to promote WP:FRINGE claims about UFOs and various people or their works. Since RSN archives about it are limited, I thought it'd be a good time to discuss it. It's been mentioned at WP:FTN a few times like here, here, here and more recently here. It's now even at WP:ANI here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

What text are you looking to verify specifically? The source, AFAIK, is reliable for what is written in it, but that is a distinct problem from people using that reliable text to say something incorrect in Wikipedia's voice. Whether or not a source is reliable is distinct and different from people using reliable sources to "verify" something incorrect in Wikipedia by misinterpreting or misusing what the source says. --Jayron32 15:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to WP:FRINGE-area stuff, Popular Mechanics has seemed sensationalist and clickbaity to me. For example, the fourth FTN discussion linked above was about claims of a compact fusion reactor; the story brushed off any implausibilities about the idea (there's one vaguely cautionary sentence in the whole thing) and freely speculated about how the Navy could be using it to build their own UFOs. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but are we saying that Pais invented a compact fusion device, or that Pais claimed to have invented a compact fusion device? Those a fundamentally different statements, and the Popular Mechanics article could only be used to verify the second statement, not the first. --Jayron32 16:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Useable with attribution, I am not sure anyone has shown it is guilty of any fabrication.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  But does coverage there actually count towards due weight? I'm doubtful. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Which is not an RS question.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Consensus about the reliability of a source can and does include this question. It is the kind of thing that's listed in WP:RSP, where the exact phrase "due weight" occurs 23 times. When Gawker is the only source for a piece of information, the information would likely constitute undue weight, etc. If the concern about how seriously a publication should be taken is more general than a single article, as is the case here, surely it's all part of the same discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I completely disagree; reliability and due weight are orthogonal. More importantly, while reliability is a general concept that can be evaluated independently on the subject due weight is intimately tied to close knowledge of the specific subject. Therefore due weight is not something that can be easily considered in a general noticeboard but must occur in venues specific to the topic, primarily the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Now I'm genuinely confused. For one thing, reliability can require specialist knowledge to evaluate; sometimes, training is necessary to cut through superficialities and sales talk, and without at least a little background on a topic, one might not even know what RS to look for in order to evaluate a publication. For another thing, there isn't a specific article in question here. PaleoNeonate listed five different discussions on two different noticeboards. If WP:RSP records the consensus about a source, where is that consensus supposed to be formed? XOR'easter (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Useable with attribution per Slatersteven. This is a general comment and does not represent my thoughts on any specific article. Popular Mechanics (among a few others) has gone all-in on UFOlogy and, in a perfect world, should never be used a source for anything about that subject. But this is not a perfect world. We only have one standard to determine if a source is RS and that is if other RS consider it RS. As of now, that's the case: Popular Mechanics is widely sourced by RS, and RS have not yet widely discredited Popular Mechanics' reporting. The fact that Popular Mechanics' reporting seems clickbaity or, even, batshit crazy, isn't enough to make it unreliable. This is, perhaps, a failure of the system but it is what it is. (Of course WP:DUE applies but, given the paucity of coverage of many UFO topics that may not be enough of a threshold to exclude it from some articles. DUE/UNDUE determinations would need to be made on an individual article's Talk page in any case and are out of scope for the RSN.) Chetsford (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Building on what Chetsford said I think its important to note that this new crop of otherwise non-fringe focused military/science/technology publications looking at the UFO topic is that they aren’t really examining the fringe aspects of the whole UFO thing. They appear to primarily explore the nexus of UFOs with advanced yet entirely manmade aircraft and weapons systems rather than engage in think pieces about what sort of pie a grey alien would prefer if a grey alien was in the mood for pie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Sigh. Popular Mechanics. On the one hand, you have Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The World Trade Center, which is a rather detailed debunking of 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy theories. On the other hand, you have Pentagon Has ‘Off-World Vehicles Not Made on This Earth’, which tries to lend credibility to conspiracy theories about miraculous alien technology being kept secret. Unfortunately, we have no third-party analysis and criticism about the current state of editorial reliability of the publication that would help us form some sort of blanket policy at this time. So the best we can do is to continue to make DUE and UNDUE determinations on a case by case/article by article basis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the author of that second article also writes for Men's Health [211] where he has written things like "3 Men With a Really Huge Penis Reveal What Their Lives Are Like". - Location (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A man of many talents it seems. PackMecEng (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It's no Aliens Smell Like Farts but I suppose we can't all win the Pulitzer. - MrOllie (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Popular Mechanics has shown quite clearly that in regard to UFOs it has gone completely off the deep end, and should never be used even with attribution. It's definitionally a WP:FRINGE source in respect to that subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Coat of arms of The Catholic University of America

A concern has been raised about the quality of sources at Coat of arms of The Catholic University of America, an article I created yesterday. Before I did, I consulted the four similar articles and thought the sourcing here was at least as good as in those:

• At Yale University coat of arms, one of two sources is from the alumni magazine.
• At Coat of arms of the University of Chicago, all five come from the University.
• At Coat of arms of the University of Notre Dame, six of twelve are ND sources.
• At Heraldry of Harvard University, all four references are from Harvard and 11 of 12 citations in the "Sources" section are from Harvard.

When the CUA article was new page patrolled the reviewer didn't flag it, but I would appreciate another review. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult to believe that any of these is independently notable, but I don't think this is the right venue to settle that question. --JBL (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, although as another said I don't think this is the best place to discuss this. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, To be clear, are you saying you think the sources are OK but it might have notability issues aside from that? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Not that at all. I thinks its find to have it up, just that board is more about deciding if sources are reliable, not if the page is notable, I fully support it being up and think you did a great job. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Pando.com

Is Pando a reliable source? It comes up a fair bit in BLP deletion discussions, and taking a look at it, they certainly hold themselves out as a news site. But it's a tiny bit unlike that, somewhat more like a blog. The contributors are often professional journalists [212] [213], but sometimes podcast hosts [214], non-journalists [215], academics [216], and... people contributing apparently promotional pseudo-articles [217] and opinion pieces from activists [218]. Amiee Pearcy appears to be the only staff editor [219] and I'm slightly concerned this may be more like her blog with guest contributors than a news organization. Sometimes they repost random medium articles from contributors whose qualifications they do not state [220]. It looks like it might be a very small operation, and in 2019 it appears its entire editorial staff changed due to the sale of the site [221]. In the founding statement, the founder calls it a blog [222]. What do we think about the following questions?

1. Does being profiled here count as significant coverage in a reliable source?
2. Are contributor articles here reliable? Do we think they are adequately fact checked and that there is significant journalistic oversight, or is it possible that contributed articles might present opinion and advertisement as fact?
3. Are staff articles here reliable?

FalconK (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Middle East Eye Opinion article on Douglas Murray by Nafeez Ahmed

This is a source that was used on the page of conservative commentator Douglas Murray.

• Nafeez Ahmed, "White supremacists at the heart of Whitehall," Middle East Eye, 9 March 2015[223]

Note that it's listed under Opinion>Human Rights. Observe that Nafeez Ahmed is a prolific and respected academic, journalist and published author who has written for The Guardian, VICE, The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald etc and also has academic publications to his name, eg[224] and quite a few books.[225] See on his website[226] and [227]

Two passages in the article for Douglas Murray quoted Ahmed's article in order to make the following points:

1. "Murray's views have been described as proximate to the far right by a number of academic and journalistic sources" (note two other journalistic sources referring to Murray as "far right" were used.
2. "Murray views have been described as a form of far-right entryism".

Both these claims were derived from the passage in the Ahmed article which read:

"I'm not sure Murray’s screed against the free speech of those asking questions about the intelligence services is ironic given that in a separate Wall Street Journal comment, he laments that the attacks in Paris and Copenhagen prove the West is losing the war on “free speech” being waged by Islamists. But Murray’s concerns about free speech are really just a ploy for far-right entryism."

It has repeatedly been argued that references to Ahmed's article should not be used on the basis it is not a RS, undue weight, appealing to emotion etc. It's true that the Ahmed article is an opinion piece, but note that the excerpts are never phrased in Wiki's voice and that the article merely notes that Murray "has been described" as far right according to Ahmed. This comes amidst an unfortunate context of vandalism and tendentious editing on Murray's page. It's the academic consensus that Murray's views can best be described as far-right, alt-right, Islamophobic, white nationalist or some combination thereof[228][229][230][231], so the point Ahmed is making is hardly novel.

Any help would be appreciated! Does this belong on Murray's page or not? Noteduck (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, the source is relevant for Ahmed's opinion, and I'd say his opinion is DUE. The phrase "Far right entryism" also is a good summary of what many academic sources have said about Murray. (t · c) buidhe 02:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe I wholeheartedly agree and think it should be restored to the page. Unfortunately this source has been repeatedly removed from the page. Springee I'm interested to know what you think of this, given that you've been repeatedly critical of MEE as a source. Noteduck (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Forum Shopping Noteduck, this exact source is being discussed just up the page [[232]]. Springee (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee this thread pertains specifically to the Ahmed source. Can you answer the question of whether you agree with Buidhe and me that the above quote from the article linking Murray to the far right belongs on the page? Noteduck (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This exact article is being discussed in the other thread. Others have already weighed in there. Springee (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)