This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Another editor claims that the source I used was google books, however he is mistaken as google books is simply the medium I used to find a book that is a source here is the diff. Can someone please explain this to him?Ndołkah (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I was about to explain this to you on your talk page. This is the URL you cited: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Kaitlin+Bennett%22+-wikipedia That's a Google search. If you want to link to the book, this is the URL to use: https://books.google.com/books?id=dZNJDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT158. Rather than simply adding a URL, you should consider using a template:cite book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not what you said you saidthe book was not a source but alas I don't know how to use this template I'm a simple girl! Help me help me?Ndołkah (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello User:Ndołkah. It seems you cited a "google books search" instead of a "book". Here is what you do to cite a book. When you edit in the article (or anywhere really) there is a "Templates" Tab that gives you other options. It is next to the "Named References" with the green clipboard symbol. Select "cite book" and it should give you many fields for you to fill in such as title, author, publisher, ISBN, etc. You can Preview to see how your reference will look and then select "Insert". That will insert your book citation into the article but you will still be in "edit" mode. Then you have to save your edit by hitting the "Publish changes" blue button and your citation edit will be saved. Hope this helps.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Using_refToolbar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

ThankiesNdołkah (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

What should be done at List of tallest buildings in the Waterloo Regional Municipality? It is one of the list pages that gets edited by enthusiasts making massive changes (example). I tried checking that edit but the article uses wonderfulwaterloo.com as a reference 22 times, and that domain has lapsed and been taken over by hugedomains.com. I checked two references in the Internet Archive but the entries have been lost with IA apparently deleting its archive when it found the pages were being redirected (example). A simple response would be to add ((dead link)) to each bad ref, but that leaves many links to a dubious site (hugedomains.com). Or, the lost references could be replaced with ((citation needed)), but that makes the list unsourced. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• An earlier version of the archived page works as you would expect: [1]. To see all of a page's archived versions in the Internet Archive, add https://web.archive.org/web/*/ to the beginning of the URL. For example, for http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php?t=1597, adding the prefix results in https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php?t=1597, which lists all of the archived versions of the page. Unfortunately, the source appears to be a forum, which is a self-published source with user-generated content, and is generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 07:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No comment on the reliability, but if there is an actual reference and not just a bare url, you can use "deadurl=unfit" for reference templates, which hides the URL from showing, but will leave it categorized as having a dead link. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind that dead-url only works if archive-url (which requires separate url and archive-date parameters) is set. See Template:Cite web § Using "archive-url" and "archive-date" (and optionally "dead-url") for webpages that have been archived for details. — Newslinger talk 08:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
      • You're right, I forgot about that. There really should be an option for this specific situation, because it does happen pretty often. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks all. What a mess. It makes sense that a URL with "showthread" would be totally unsuitable as a reference and that was confirmed at an example I just viewed. A good guess would be that some of the participants in the forum are editing the article. There is no reasonable way to handle a page like that—I just checked a non-wonderfulwaterloo reference (for Sun Life Building is 78 m) and it also appears unsuitable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking to expand a song article from Identity Theory, but I'm not sure if it's an RS. It's wiki page says "Identity Theory is a non-profit website with substantial readership and a staff of over a dozen volunteers, including Robert Birnbaum. It offers author and band interviews, fiction writing, artwork, and reviews, with a moral slant shown by its commitment to social justice." so idk if that means it's reliable. Thanks for the help! – zmbro _(talk) 16:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems like it's probably all right in general. It sounds like it's been active for a long time, has a credentialed editorial staff, and has conducted numerous interviews with noteworthy people. Its specific reliability probably depends on what statement(s) you want to support, and in which article; you've only provided the source. That said, I think it would probably be appropriate for most cultural topics, like a song. —BLZ · talk 17:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Is Geni.com a RS ~ thanks Mitchellhobbs (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. Geni.com (RSP entry) contains user-generated content in the form of user contributions (like an open wiki), which should be avoided. WP:BLPPRIMARY allows limited use of Geni's primary source documents to support a reliable secondary source. Be careful not to interpret primary source documents through original research, and be aware that unauthenticated documents may be altered or forged. — Newslinger talk 22:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the great answer Newslinger ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem! — Newslinger talk 22:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I'm working on Operation Forty Stars. Are The Globepost and Albawaba reliable for having the following text: "When Iran-Iraq war began, Saddam started to supporting the MEK member and his goal was using from them against Iranian. In this case, the operation was supported by Iraqi Air Force. On 26 July 1988, Iranian forces launched an operation, which named Operation Mersad, and took back the Mehran city from MEK and Iraqi forces again." Thanks. Forest90 (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have recently encountered the above-named site used as a ref by a newbie when removing citation needed. Any thoughts on this Prabook homepage? Very vague about us section. A WP search returns a few very recent uses in the last few days only. I'm thinking this is a recent US-based development, likely a crowd-sourced wiki needing login?

The content accessed by the newbie as a ref I believe to be essentially unacknowledged copy-paste plagiarism from WP. I've flagged it up at Inge Stoll and Talk. As a control, I checked William Dunlop at Prabook with the same results, including the image I uploaded to Wikipemedia from Flickr (no acknowledgements - our article William Dunlop (motorcyclist).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Obvious unacknowledged copy/paste from Wikipedia is a clear sign of unreliable source. This certainly should not be used as a reference for BLP (or other) articles. Pavlor (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an open-source project that accepts biographies by anonymous submission. Definitely not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, otherwise we should treat Ash Williams as a WP:BLP [2]. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_211#Prabook_as_user-generated_content --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. 2016, and 2015 at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 191#Prabook.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to be more clear: it is completely open editing. You can register an account and change anything you'd like. The site's disclaimer page notes "Prabook cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been created, changed or altered by someone, whose opinion does not correspond with the real facts about a person. Administrators have not necessarily reviewed information published in Prabook." This is a non-starter. I try to watch for these links, but fall behind sometimes. Kuru (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Then WP:USERGEN like Wikipedia, I agree it's not usable as a source. —PaleoNeonate – 00:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Found this source being used to support the extraordinary claim that the Intellectual Dark Web is "politically liberal." [19] It appears to be a blog, and from the obvious HTML errors on it, not a very well managed one. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Example HTML error the about page - Test Text Box Test Test Test. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Could I get an assessment on whether Mladá fronta DNES is reliable for contemporary claims about political parties in the Czech Republic? Specifically, I came across this publication while reviewing the article Democratic Party of Greens. Looking through the references of our Wikipedia article for DNES, one of the sources listed says ‘Mladá fronta’ started out as a serious newspaper but has been slipping down into a zone somewhere between seriousness and tabloid with sensationalist stories [20]. The source also calls it the second-largest print publication in the Czech Republic. However, it's not clear that this source is reliable in itself, and I would thus appreciate more opinions. Note that the paper shares the title of a socialist youth group publication from the socialist era, but it appears to have little-to-no connection to that publication. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

We should not depend on mass media for reliable sources on political articles, so I'd take it with a grain of salt and give due preference to academic sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, at this point I'm just trying to determine that we have enough coverage such that WP:NPOSSIBLE seems likely. While coverage in mass media should be taken with a grain of salt, as you said, I think that if DNES is even marginally reliable it's an indicator of the existence of other more reliable sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• I would be cautious with anything Mladá Fronta claims about Czech politics. It's owned by current PM Andrej Babiš' company Agrofert, thus cannot be relied on to be impartial. So probably best used in conjunction with other sources. I'd consider it reliable for routine facts, like when a party was founded (as in the DSZ article linked) or how many votes parties got in an election, and so on. But I would be careful using it for detailed descriptions of a party's ideology, for example. It's definitely not the worst source out there (we should be more worried about horseshit like "parlamentní listy" when it comes to Czech politics) but it's worth bearing in mind where its loyalties lie. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• MF Dnes is a major newspaper in the Czech Republic (along with Lidove noviny, Pravo and Hospodarske noviny). Note it is close to the current prime minister, who owned it along with Lidove noviny (in theory he has no direct control over both papers now, but this connection should be noted; certainly not "party newspaper" like Halo noviny though). It is generally reliable source (regular editorial staff, posting corrections). As always context matters - it may be useful for a simple statement of fact, but academic source would be better suited for a more thorough analysis. As of "tabloid" journalism, no, this is not Blesk or Aha (or even close to these). Quite good source for notability. Pavlor (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely concur with filelakeshoe and Pavlor. I would be cautious when it comes to some political analyses and reporting on Czech politics in MF Dnes, other than that it's a perfectly reliable source. As for the connection to the current PM of the Czech Republic - yes, the connection is obvious. We have to however bear in mind that the largest Czech newspapers and magazines belong to Czech oligarchs, so we shouldn't be singling out just MF Dnes. Also, as the users above correctly pointed out, it can't be even compared to tabloids like Blesk or Super, party newspaper like communist Haló noviny or fake news outlets like Parlamentní listy or Aeronet. - Darwinek (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Minnie Chan is a South China Morning Post reporter and frequently reports on the Chinese military. Her reports exhibits poor editorial oversights:

1. Overuse or abuse of anonymous sources: Virtually every Minnie Chan's report uses opinions only attributes to a source that is close to the subject. The following are some examples. Additionally, many statements of the anonymous sources do not have corroborating Chinese sources before the publications of the report. Chinese sources reporting on the subject only appear after the publication and often are the translation of the SCMP report.
   1. [21]
   2. [22]
   3. [23]
2. Some reports contain factual errors.
   1. [24]

Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, the failure to cite sources reflects poorly on the reliability of those reports. As many of the anonymous claims are WP:EXTRAORDINARY, should those reports be considered reliable? -Mys_721tx (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I think USEBYOTHERS means how other reliable sources perceive the source in question (Minnie Chan's reports in this case). Is Minnie Chan's work used by other media as a basis for reporting (BBC, CNN etc.)? Are there concerns about their (reports) reliability or reliability of South China Morning Post in general (voiced in reliable sources)? Pavlor (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Using "site:cnn.com SCMP Military", "site:nytimes.com SCMP Military",and "site:bbc.co.uk SCMP Military" as search terms on Google, I checked 2 pages each and did not found any using her work.

There is a report on New York Times regarding the Alibaba purchase [25]. I don't think there are any on this subject in particular. -Mys_721tx (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Popping by to make my usual statement that Wikipedia should not depend on journalists for statements of fact with regard to political and military matters. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous sources are allowed and are sometimes the only way to report a story, according to the Society of Professional Journalists.[26] Quite often governments will brief the press on condition of the anonymity of a source. The only concern I would have is where one publication had a scoop and no other media picked up on it. That would indicate either they did not consider the story credible or they did not consider it significant, both of which would usually disqualify it from inclusion in a Wikiepdia article. One recent article by Chan called "How Tiananmen crackdown left a deep scar on China's military psyche", which quotes two unnamed former Chinese military officers. Obviously unless and until the Chinese army decides to make an official statement on the topic, we are only going to find out what they think through anonymous sources. But a good reporter will assess the credibility of these sources before publication. TFD (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

While the South China Morning Post is imperfect, my understanding is that it is generally considered an independent and reliable source, with good standards of accuracy (though there can be a tendency for it to take a 'safe' approach). As such, negative commentary from experts would be needed to rule that one of its reporters is systematically unreliable. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

SCMP's overall reliability is not in question here. Negative commentary is hard to come by as Minnie Chan's reports are not wildly used. Of the three articles on Jane's 360 citing SCMP, none uses Minnie Chan's. Of the seven reports on DefenseNews.com citing (searched by "site:defensenews.com SCMP"), three use Minnie Chan's reports and are more or less paraphrased from the original report. To me, this raises a red flag. -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Jane's has its own fairly large network of correspondents including specialists on the Chinese military, so there's no reason to expect it would specifically reference stories in other works. You are engaging in WP:OR here - the only reason to be concerned about the SCMP's coverage of the Chinese military is if experts have raised concerns about it. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:OR governs the content of articles and does not apply to the assessment and evaluation of sources in discussion, which are routinely done on this noticeboard. -Mys_721tx (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Frequently making WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims that are not covered by other outlets is a valid concern on the reliability of the source. Indeed Jane's correspondents may not reference other stories specifically. However, it becomes a problem when the experts also do not cover the claims made in these stories. -Mys_721tx (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that you have not actually explained what your concerns with the accuracy of this journalist's reportage are, unless you are a expert in this field and can point to where your analysis has been published they are worthless for the purposes of judging whether this source is a WP:RS. We do not dismiss journalists published in reputable news sources on the say-so of individual editors. If a prominent news source is regularly publishing incorrect stories on an important topic, as you are claiming, there will be expert analysis pointing this out. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

As I explained before, the concern is the over-reliance of anonymous sources on very specific claims, which does not reflect well on SCMP's editorial oversights on military content. As per your request, the following are two authors on the Diplomats and the National Interests Blog concerning claims in five SCMP reports:

1. [27]
   1. [28] (Liu Zhen)
2. [29]
   1. [30] (Minnie Chan)
3. [31]
   1. [32] (Minnie Chan)
   2. [33] (Minnie Chan)
   3. [34] (Minnie Chan)
4. [35]
   1. [36] (Stephen Chen)

I will see if I can find more. I am in no way an expert so there will not be any of published analysis from me. -Mys_721tx (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The first of those Diplomat articles refers to " Multiple articles from multiple outlets" getting something fairly minor wrong, probably, with the SMCP article linked to as an example of this being written by Liu Zhen not Minnie Chan. The second Diplomat article's references to an article by Chan and other reportage states that "A number of articles in recent months have suggested that the PLA Navy is also interested in pursuing a next generation carrier-borne fighter. This is certainly true; however, it would be incorrect to characterize it as due to any recent or inherent deficiency in the existing J-15 platform, considering indications of a fifth generation carrier-borne fighter have been circulating for a number of years now", which hardly seems problematic - it's about interpretation of what the facts mean, rather than the accuracy of the reports. The third Diplomat article also discusses general over-exaggeration in the media about a Chinese fighter jet and doesn't single out the SCMP at all, much less Chan. None of those sources even comes close to criticism of this journalist or the SMCP. This looks like a vendetta, and I don't intend to waste further time on this. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Please give an example of what you consider to be a criticism of any journalist of a publication on military topics if you wish to. It would be shifting the goalpost to first demand "negative expert commentary" and then discounting them as irrelevant, especially when the three examples "on the general over-exaggeration in the media about a Chinese fighter jet" are all SCMP reports. Let me reiterate if I have not explained more clearly earlier: the concern is over the editorial oversight. Perhaps the title of the discussion should be moved to better reflect that. If I understand correctly, all three reporters in the examples above probably go through the same editors. I fail to see how the article was written by a different reporter make any difference on the editors' part. -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I would say other outlets are extremely interested in what the anonymous sources are delivering via Chan.... I would generally advocate using Chan (or SCMP in general in this topic area) in an attributed manner - particularly when Chan is asserting an anonymous source. Reporting what an anonymous (but high ranking) source wants to be written is quite interesting in its own right. SCMP, in this regard, is used for signalling and indeed it not a coincidence this signalling is done in English (as opposed to local non-English media). Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Does the signalling apply to all anonymous sources or some with qualifiers? "source close to the [subject]" and "source familiar with the [subject]" do not carry the same weight. Unless specified in the report itself, how do we know a particular source is a high ranking person? -Mys_721tx (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  This is more of an impact "thing" than a reliability "thing" - as in my mind you should be using SCMP attributed when they carry such reporting (or even better - use a source that analyzes their reporting - which may indeed be PRIMARYish in the sense that this is the "raw signal"). As someone who reads quite a bit of military content/news - SCMP is often cited by others (attributed) since others consider SCMP to be a signalling/channeling medium (on the same note - NYT and WaPo were (maybe not under Trump, he's had a bit of a tiff with WaPo) a signalling channel for US officials when they carried anonymous sourced stories on such matters... And English language newspapers of record in non-English speaking countries are often used for this - China is not unique here) - so yes - you are getting a message (in such content) of what someone high-up in China wants you to hear about their military capabilities/intents - however it is extremely interesting to know what someone high-up in China wants you to know about Chinese military capabilities/intents. Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  I agree that any anonymous claims from Chan should be clearly attributed in-text. I would argue, however, that any assertion on the interestingness of these claims in an article must be backed up by secondary source. -Mys_721tx (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  I would say that is article dependent - e.g. - Type 096 submarine (or to a lesser extent Type 095 submarine) - attributed SCMP would be an improvement/augmentation over the United States Office of the Secretary of Defense: Annual Report To Congress 2017 (what US intel is willing to tell publicly about what they allegedly know). For something like Chengdu J-10 I'd roll with you. Icewhiz (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

At Talk:Deaths in 2019#Linda Collins' DoD, I've proposed qualifying Linda Collins-Smith's entry with a "(body found on this date)", since multiple sources say things like "It’s not clear when Collins-Smith died as her remains were decomposed", "It’s not known how long she had been dead when her body was discovered" and "It still remains unclear how, when, or why she was killed".

Three other editors contend this obituary's headline is sufficient to cancel out such widely-reported uncertainty. I say the source itself doesn't mention a death date, and believe the date they see is simply for organizational purposes.

The diff is just this. Or in reverse.

Any advice? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I am Not sure this is an RS, this is (in effect a notice of a funeral).Slatersteven (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I am curious as to how they have a date of death of June 04, 2019 at the top of the obituary. The death is still being investigated but obituaries are usually collaborated with family so perhaps this is the best info so far. For sure she was dead by that date. I would think that attributing the date to the source would help out in the article for that claim. For example something like "According to the Funeral home that will be having the funeral service for the family, her date of death is reported as June 04, 2019 on the obituary." Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

But the obituary itself doesn't report this, only her birthdate, birthplace and deathplace. Headlines aren't sources, discussions above indicate. And there isn't room in the disputed article for all that, unless you're suggesting a footnote. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

June 4th was the date her body was found and therefore probably later than when she actually died but perhaps the last date on which she could possibly have died. TFD (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Given the news reports specifically call out the death date/time as unknown, the material in the obit is unreliable (given we know exactly when the body was found). Leave out the day and just list the month. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

To be clearer, the pertinent article is Deaths in 2019. Leaving out the day is not an option, only clarifying her entry or not. Your appraisal suggests we should note her body was discovered on June 4, when her entry currently signifies she died. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Why would leaving out the date not be an option? Surely this can’t be the first situation where we know someone notable died in a given year, but where the exact date of death is uncertain or unknown (I would think this would become quite common the further back in time one goes). So, wouldn’t it be logical for our Deaths in XXXX articles to have a separate sub-section at the end, just for listing these situations? Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That was proposed recently. I forget which month or how it exactly went, but it was brief and locally unpopular. Many dead folks have died circa sometime or another over the years, and it's common enough to put them approximately when their death was announced or body was found (we even have shorthand abbreviations for such edit summaries). Helps readers find them where roughly expected. What's unusual this time is only everyone's sudden acceptance of a headline as even worth considering, and moreso its apparent superiority to a multitude of formerly trusted actual journalism (the stuff we read once the headlines bring it to our attention). It's almost unsettling, dammit! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not a RS issue (no, the funeral home can not be expected to be definitive). My 2 cents - leave the date unspecified (beyond year, possibly month). There might be a coroner report later with a better date at trial and/or other evidence leading to an actual date of shooting. If you really need a date somewhere (e.g. for Deaths in 2019) - use the date the body was found, until there is a more definitive death estimate. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Straightforward case of WP:WIKIVOICE. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

According to Die Weltwoche,

On 12 May, 2010, the main title of the weekly edition of the Weltwoche was: "Must Islam be Banned? - The religion of the muslims is not compatible with the Swiss Constitution."[9] The front cover of the Weltwoche of 5 April 2012 published a photograph of a Roma child pointing a gun at a camera under the headline "The Roma are coming". The controversy sparked by this choice of illustration was reported internationally.[10] On 26 June 2012, Die Weltwoche published an article which lamented the spread of the Irish gene pool and falsely claimed that the Irish Government requires pre-marital DNA testing in an effort to halt supposed widespread incest amongst the Irish who, it was further claimed, have rat-like anatomic features. The article was translated into English and caused controversy in the Irish media.[11][12][13]

Is Die Weltwoche an unreliable source that Wikipedia must never use? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Were corrections (and/or apologies) posted by the magazine after the 2012 false claims about the Irish? (the other examples are disgusting of course, but manipulative extremist POV in titles and cover pictures is not in itself disqualifying - compare eg. with "tabloid like" headlines of many quite serious media). Other big issue is probably (rather lack of) editorial oversight, when owner and editor in chief is also national level politician, I would rather not use such magazine for anything about politics. Pavlor (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Where was it published, what was it (an opp-edd, a blog)? The above gives us no context.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

The last # of Le Point feature an editorial by Franz-Olivier Giesbert talking about Eurabia, Bat Ye'or being a scholar and not a conspiracy theorist, the 500 no-go zones in France ruled by sharia, with no mention of Breivik or Utøya. ([37] [38]) Is Le Point an unreliable source that Wikipedia must never use? @Doug Weller, Nishidani, and Lebob: Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

What is the problem here? My French is not ideal, but there is nothing to raise a red flag for me. And this is only an opinion piece, which would not be in many cases useable as a RS anyway (other than for voicing an attributed point of view). Are there any real signs of unreliability of this media (reporting falsehoods, no corrections, "invisible" editorial staff etc.)? Pavlor (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

As an editorial it might not be an RS, no.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a new initiative regarding media coverage of climate change. I'm not quite sure whether they've settled on a title — I've seen "Covering Climate Change in a 1.5-Degree World" as well as "Covering Climate Change: A New Playbook for a 1.5-Degree World".

I applaud any initiative to improve the coverage of this important issue.

The initiative was kicked off with a live streamed conference. I got the impression from the conference presentation that it was a joint venture of CJR , The Nation, and The Guardian, although some reports suggest that the initiative is led by CJR, The Nation, with the Guardian and WNYC as cosponsors. Some of the announcement materials, such as The Media Are Complacent While the World Burns, suggest this is "merely" a call for better journalism, although there are hints of a more ambitius initiative:

There is a runaway train racing toward us, and its name is climate change. That is not alarmism; it is scientific fact. We as a civilization urgently need to slow that train down and help as many people off the tracks as possible. It’s an enormous challenge, and if we don’t get it right, nothing else will matter.

I've been very interested in climate issues for many years and look forward to seeing some of this coverage.

By now, you may be wondering why I'm writing here. I urge you to watch the conference (Warning it is over five hours, although they do take a lunch break).

The conference participants make it clear that they intend this initiative to be a seachange in the way climate issues are covered. At approximately the 1:21:34 Margaret Sullivan talks about the distinction between observers and advocates. Traditionally, the media specifically adopts the role of observer rather than advocates. She notes the example that when it comes to press rights, the media cannot simply be observers but they must be advocates. She uses that as a jumping off point to suggest that when it comes to climate change, it is okay for the media to be advocates for healthy planet. (It wasn't perfectly clear to me whether she was advocating for this change to apply to all media or only media outlets that join in this initiative).

At approximately 2:18:00 Katrina vanden Heuvel (Of The Nation) reiterates Margaret Sullivan's point and supports the notion that it's time to become advocates.

I'm not here to suggest that it is wrong for journalists to abandon journalism and become advocates. If an issue is truly as important as they believe it is, becoming advocates is a principled decision. However, Wikipedia treats sources differently depending on whether they are straight news organization or advocates. If this initiative gets off the ground (and Bill Moyers, on hehalf of an organization he heads, pledged $1 million to it in the closing speech), I think Wikipedia has to treat the organizations signing onto the initiative as advocates rather than news organizations, limited of course, to climate coverage.

We often wrestle here with sources who have blurred the line between pure reporting and advocacy. While this issue is a bigger deal, we don't have to read between the lines or infer anything — they openly state their support for becoming advocates.

I don't expect this to be a slamdunk proposal and I invite thoughtful commentary. I will ask that anyone responding identify how much of the conference they watched. I'll emphasize that the links to text I provided don't make the transition from journalism to advocacy as clear as the speakers at the conference.S Philbrick(Talk) 16:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm very wary of your proposal, or of any proposal that seeks to downgrade reliable sources simply because they're committed to covering the science of climate change accurately. I don't see the sharp distinction between journalism and advocacy that you do in this case. When journalists cover HIV/AIDS, for instance, they do so from the perspective that it is a clear public-health threat; efforts to combat the disease are implicitly positive, while barriers to confronting the disease are implicitly negative. That's not "advocacy"; it's an assumption of a shared set of basic human interests. Since climate change is an even greater threat to public health and well-being than HIV/AIDS, I don't see the problem with acknowledging that in its media coverage.

  Having watched some (not all) of the links you provided, my sense is that the goal is for the media to move away from reflexive false equivalence and both-sidesism on the issue. That is, the goal is to re-set the Overton window to mirror reality. There is no serious scientific debate about whether human activity is causing drastic and dangerous climate change, and to the extent that journalists imply otherwise, they're misinforming the public. Addressing that false balance issue increases, rather than decreases, the reliability and encyclopedic value of these sources. (Likewise, over time, reputable media have done a better job with covering anti-vaccinationism and other harmful forms of nonsense. Again, not advocacy; more like a recognition of Okrent's Law—"The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true").

  The bottom line is that, no, I don't agree at all that we should downgrade reliable sources on climate change. They are committing to cover the topic more accurately and appropriately, and in a manner more commensurate with its gravity and with the scientific and scholarly understanding of the topic. That's a good thing in terms of their reliability and suitability, not a bad thing. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Let’s wait and see what happens. We need to see HOW these outlets change their reporting before we can decide how we should respond. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar, I completely agree. I believe this initiative is supposed to kick off in September, so we have some time but given the stature of the media outlets involved, I thought it would be good to to start the discussion now. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

MastCell,

They are committing to cover the topic more accurately

With all due respect, I wouldn't be here if that was their goal. The text-based links leave that impression, but the conference leaves a different impression. Did you hear where they said:

There's no pressure to contend with people who have opposing views or whatever. They're wrong, and we don't have to talk about them.

? That's a sign of straight-up advocacy, not responsible journalism.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That looks like the same practice as what we require in our undue weight policy. The organizations intend to treat climate change denial as a fringe theory that deserves reduced coverage, instead of creating a false balance between two sides that have vastly different levels of scientific support. — Newslinger talk 21:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• 2 cents - much of the media discourse on Climate change is advocacy - with almost religious undertones. I would advocate that Wikipedia, in general, avoid media sources for the subject - and use published scholarship which is more nuanced (and obviously supports climate change - however most academic writing (in the majority, or in the minority still disputing climate change) - gives at least a nod towards opposing arguments (as opposed to blanket dismissal)). For some topics - media sources aren't the best - e.g. WP:MEDPOP - "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality,[31] costs, and risks versus benefits,[32] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[33] - the situation with climate change (on the science, ignoring politics - which obviously is more a media issue) is similar. Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  Icewhiz, I am not on board with avoiding media sources generally. I I am quite aware that we take considerable care to use high-quality sources when talking about medical subjects, and I think we try to do the same when talking about the narrow subject of climate science, but we have a host of articles lumped into the arena of climate issues which specifically include the public's view of the issue in various attempts by advocacy groups to shape the discussion. It would be close to impossible and arguably irresponsible to limit those discussions to scholarly papers as sources. When making a scientific statement such as Arrhenius's rule, I totally agree that a peer-reviewed source is better than a mass media source, but there are other subjects where mass media sources make sense. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• A related issue on this is recognizing that when the media starts to become an advocate for an issue, people that are opposed to that issue or the like start to become the subject of red-lettering, vilifying, or other negative press (since their ideas are not in line with the media's), and this ends up become the mode which WP treats these people because "it reflects what the media is stating". We need to be very careful of repeating without question media advocacy in our articles. WP should be amoral to most topics and should not blinding repeat what the media says but instead filter that impartially. We should not be treating "climate change denier" as a sign that a person is bad and thus influence us to write their article from a negative standpoint, just because many media sources do. --Masem (t) 13:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Journalists stopping to sit on the fence between science and lunatic charlatanery, and instead joining the science side, is a good thing. It actually makes them much more reliable than before. Wikipedia should applaud. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Right now the biggest problem with the way Climate Change is covered is that they try to provide 'balance" between well established scientific fact, and what are basically fringe views. If they're honestly going to eliminate their efforts to provide that false illusion of balance, then their coverage will become more reliable, not less. (And they would be bringing their own policies more in line with Wikipedia's, I might add.) ApLundell (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I believe the same scrutiny we apply to our medical articles should apply to articles about climate change. I check-in on the NASA website from time-to-time, and also read the sources they cite. Another issue I'm seeing is that we should focus more closely on verifiable facts and known effects that science has determined to be a direct result of climate change. We should be very cautious of clickbait sensationalism and speculation by news media, in much the same way we scrutinize them for medical articles. If we do decide to use the highest quality news sources, like NYTimes, we should also verify the sources they cited and make sure we include all relevant views per DUE. I think we should steer clear of fear mongering which is neither scientific nor encyclopedic. The NASA article published the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which "forecasts a 2.5 to 10F degree rise over the next century." Alot can happen over the next century. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In this diff, citations to Breitbart were added to Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation). My first thought was, "Wasn't that source added to the blacklist?" It turns out that the citations evade this problem by simply omiting a URL. So, I guess there are two questions here:

1. is it OK to evade the blacklist by not using URLs?
2. is Breitbart a reliable source for criticism of Wikipedia? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

In general, if the criticism is valid, better sources may cover it. But generally unreliable sources can still be used with attribution to cite the opinion of the person who wrote it. Resulting in the question: is that particular person's opinion considered important in the context? Is the person qualified to say that? Unless the article was anonymous, I would personally avoid using "according to Breitbart News", with more specific attribution to the author. For the blacklist-evasion, requesting that specific links be whitelisted is possible. —PaleoNeonate – 19:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, are we going to cite Wikirev, Wiki in action and such for criticism of Wikipedia now? These sources are garbage-tier no matter what. Evading the blocklist is tantamount to spam. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

1. No.
2. No.

François Robere (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and boldly removed it for now. Breitbart is considered completely and thoroughly unreliable for statements of fact, and since all of these statements are fact claims and so I have removed them. The fact it is blacklisted gives even more pause to including this. Toa Nidhiki05 19:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I support that, —PaleoNeonate – 20:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• If an editor wants to cite a page from a source that is on the spam blacklist, the correct way to handle this is to nominate the link to be added to the spam whitelist. Any blacklisted website page that doesn't qualify for the spam whitelist shouldn't be cited in a Wikipedia article, regardless of whether it is linked. — Newslinger talk 21:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Short answer: remove BBN here as it is being used for claimed statements of fact (what various WMF ppl said). BBN is not a RS for any factual information and the blacklisting/spam filter addition is to prevent editors from trying to add it easily. BBN can still be used for RSOPINION statements, if BBN's opinion is adding something useful. --Masem (t) 21:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The given reason for the addition to the blacklist was "to control massive spamming and disruption by JarlaxleArtemis socks". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not a reliabe source. Not, usually, a notable opinion. And not even reliable enough to trust them on a third-party opinion. Burn it with fire. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. Any notable criticism or other opinion will either be published by a more reputable outlet or receive coverage by other independent, reliable secondary sources. Either way, I don't see any basis for citing Breitbart outside of the WP:ABOUTSELF context--and even then it should be handled with caution. R2 (bleep) 17:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Is mayoclinic.org is a RS? Puduḫepa (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

For what?Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: for topics like this one. Puduḫepa (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand, it is not the topic that counts, its what they are specifically being sourced for. You seem to have a lot of sources there, so why do you want to use this one?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I may not use all the sources I linked there—I have just gathered them as they seem relevant. It was a general question btw, not specific to the page I linked. I would like to know if Mayo Clinic is regarded as RS for the articles related to med. Puduḫepa (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

No more then any other hospital, which mean context matters. They may well be reliable for some stuff, but not for others.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic is a reliable source in general for medical claims in general and its website is also reliable source in general for a wikipedia page on the hospital itself. But context matters on the claim being made. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDSCI allows monographs. However, if systematic reviews or guidelines are available, they should take precedence. -Mys_721tx (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

While it may meet rs, it's better to use medical text-books or peer-reviewed articles because they provide sources which readers might to look at and it makes it easier for editors to resolve any conflict of facts in various sources. If for example, Mayo provides one figure for the number of people who have contracted a certain type of illness while a similar source provides another, we cannot determine which is correct. But if we use academic sources, they will provide sources, such as a CDC study. We can then look at these sources and determine whether they have been correctly reported.

I have come across a number of cases where information originally reported turned out to be incorrect. In those cases, it was helpful to have citations in the sources used, so that I could determine which was correct.

TFD (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ TFD--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Almost none of our readers look at the sources we cite, much less at any footnotes that might be in the sources we cite, so I think that's a minor consideration.

Mayo Clinic and similar sites are okay sources for general, uncontested information. They're good for things like "People taking SSRIs sometimes experience side effects", but not things like "exactly this percent of people taking SSRIs will experience this specific side effect".

IMO it's reasonable (although not mandatory) to cite the occasional source that an average adult could read and understand (i.e., something that's not a medical textbook or an academic journal article). But you should build your article primarily from your highest quality sources, and this is only an "okay" source, not a great one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia advises, "Where articles have references to external sources (whether online or not) read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says." Furthermore, "In most academic institutions Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias and other tertiary sources, is unacceptable as a source for facts in a research paper." Therefore it is useful to have citable sources. For students, academic researchers and writers, the sources provided in Wikipedia articles are extremely helpful. These articles are often the first source consulted because they are accessible, easily understandable and footnoted. The University of Pittsburgh University Library System advises to "use Wikipedia to become familiar with a topic or as a starting point for research" but "don't cite Wikipedia articles in your bibliography."[44]

• Not a great source. Okay for basic non controversial stuff which this obviously is not. Would be better to use a systematic review in a major journal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Mayo Clinic was a provider of information for Google's Knowledge Graph for 3 years and might still be. I expect that Google partnered with them because they were trustworthy for collecting statements of fact. There might be documentation somewhere about where and how Google used their information, and if that documentation exists, then that could inform a decision in Wikipedia on how we use this content. So far as I know, Mayo Clinic's publications are consumer facing content more like Wikipedia articles, and not independent sources. I highly trust their simple statements of fact which are obvious to health care providers but might be difficult to source from medical literature. For information beyond that better to use WP:MEDRS content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this or this a reliable source for the claim that Jeanne Calment might be a fraud? They all appear to cite this paper. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The paper is unpublished. So doubtful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!Rockstonetalk to me! 04:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful in developing consensus if you could elaborate on your reasons here. Rockstonetalk to me! 05:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Can Spartan Daily be considered a reliable source? It's been around since 1934, but it's a school newspaper for the San Jose State University produced by journalism and advertising students. // Liftarn (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Please provide the specific source, and content.

Web Sheriff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Related RSN discussions concerning college newspapers: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_215#University_student_newspapers_reliable?, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_46#Are_student-run_college_newspapers_considered_reliable_sources?, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_222#The_Orion_-_Student_Newspaper --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's the article 21 Savage detained by ICE agents from https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartan_daily_2019/7/ about Web Sheriff providing a forged birth certificate. // Liftarn (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable for this use case, since the article covers a legal controversy involving 21 Savage, a living person that is unrelated to the school. I doubt the student journalists have the resources to properly fact-check the claims presented here. The article is more of a tertiary source than a secondary source, and much of the information is attributed to other sources including the Daily Mail (RSP entry), Complex, and XXL. The Daily Mail is deprecated, but if you find the original Complex and XXL articles, you can cite and use them. — Newslinger talk 08:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not used for anything about 21 Savage but about the company Web Sheriff. // Liftarn (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Taio Cruz, Web Sheriff, and MusicBrainz have nothing to do with San Jose State University or San Jose, California, so I wouldn't use The Spartan Daily for this. This article from TorrentFreak (RSP entry), "Web Sheriff Sent “Forged” Taio Cruz Birth Certificate to MusicBrainz", would be much better.​ — Newslinger talk 20:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

      I've also responded at Talk:Web Sheriff § NPOV concern. — Newslinger talk 00:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

      The reliability of the TorrentFreak article is now being discussed at § TorrentFreak for Web Sheriff. — Newslinger talk 23:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  In general, a student publication's circle of competence includes news related to the school and, to a lesser extent, news in the school's local area. In-text attribution is recommended, and the publication's articles don't necessarily contribute to a subject's notability. For anything other than school-related and local news, student publications should probably not be used as sources of facts. — Newslinger talk 08:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Can articles from OrissaPost be used as sources in Wikipedia? I was unable to find any info on the editors, etc. in the website's About Us section. One of its articles, [45] was used to source content in the Ho people article, which I reverted because of it. Kindly advice. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be a sister-publication of Dharitri (newspaper) (see this article). The latter has been in operation since 1974, while Orissa Post started publishing in April 2011 and from all appearances is a genuine (paper) broadsheet. So I would say that it is ok for facts that are subject of routine, non-controversial news reporting.

However, we should keep in mind its relatively small circulation of 35,000, niche target-market ("pro-people, youth-oriented approach") and ownership by a BJD MP (and son of an ex-CM of Odisha) Tathagata Satpathy and be careful when using it to establish notability of "youth-oriented" figures, or non-routine political news/analysis.

As for this edit in particular: statements by activists shouldn't be stated as facts in wikipedia's voice. Note though that West Bengal can be included in the list based on this ToI article that is already cited. That said, none of the existing sources for the sentence (ToI and Business Standard) is really high-quality. Surely we can find more scholarly sources or census-type reports for the claim? Abecedare (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I agree that West Bengal is mentioned in the first line of this source, but few paras down, the source writes "Ho is a very old tribal language. In some areas, it is called by other names like Kol, Kolha and Munda" which makes it confusing since Kol, Kolha and Munda are separate ethno-linguistic groups. This is making me doubt the source. Secondly, the inclusion of West Bengal and Assam in a sentence which ends with "they constitute around 10.5% of the Scheduled Tribes" is plain wrong since only in Jharkhand and Odisha, the population is that high. Assam doesn't have a Ho population as per census year 2011 and West Bengal has 23000+ but that consititutes a negligible 0.4% of the toal ST population of the state. I believe only the TOI source above can be kept since it talks about "Ho people". The other sources this and this are more "Ho language" centric. And the lead needs to be reworded as per Census 2011 here. It is full of unsourced and original researches.

As for this, changes I believe I'll keep "orissapost" citation only when a piece of text is not supported by more reliable sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the "reliability" of Orissa Post is a side-issue as far as the lede of Ho people is concerned. I agree that the current lede is difficult to parse and we should be able to improve both the sourcing and the writing. Can continue at the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This has been on here previously[1][2][3] and me and User:El komodos drago were wondering if anything had changed since it is now solely online and the last RFC was in 2013. ^{[Username Needed]} 17:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would it have?Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The fact that it is used as a source in thousands of articles and has not been challenged in the last six years is a pretty good indication that editors perceive it to be reliable. TFD (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• It is considered one of the most reliable press sources in the UK and less politically biased than many others, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The reason I asked Username Needed about it was because I was attempting to use it to cite existing content about the Tesco date system debacle (on the Jullian Calendar page which another editor has explained is the wrong place) and @John Maynard Friedman: dismissed it as a tabloid that is no longer printed. They also said that the article was a throwaway remark, Tescos was a random supermarket, and Britain a mid-sized European country (and thus what the largest supermarket chain in Britain uses is trivia) so I've got a feeling he was using hyperbole. The editor has however clarified that I wasn't challenging the Indo as a wp:RS. El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I also suggested listing it as there seemed to be a body of opinion that since it had gone online the headlines had become more clickbaity but I believe that Wikipedia does not allow the usage of headlines for citations, only body text. El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As I am named here, let me respond.

First, I did not and would not suggest that The Independent is anywhere near the depths to which the Daily Mail descended in terms of deliberate fabrication of stories. I do think that its journalistic standards have slipped and it is no longer it what used to be called the broadsheet category. But that is nowhere near enough to propose it be considered for 'better source needed' tagging. IMO, it is still an acceptable source, subject to appraisal.

But most important of all, hard cases make bad law: the storm in a teacup here is that one journalist on one occasion made one silly error of terminology on a trivial and incidental detail. El komodos drago is trying to drag that trivia into Julian calendar, despite a strong consensus that it not appropriate to include it, WP:RS or not.

That is the last I have to say on this matter. El komodos drago has already wasted more than enough of our time pursuing this obsession. Stop it here, stop it now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Right well that was interesting. I am actually no longer pursuing it at all, only curious as to whether Friedman thought that it needed complete removal. I personally am not bothered about whether or not it is included, I only wanted to understand the relevant policies. I am also sorry to hear that I have wasted Friedman's time although I was actually no longer attempting to add it in and had unanswered messages on the talk page when he messaged me. With regards to the clear consensus, a perusal of the articles history does lead me to point out that 4 inexperienced editors (excluding me as I never attempted to add it, only source and clarify it) attempted to add it while 3 editors attempted to remove with the later being more experienced and right. (as an interesting side note, many of those 4 editors now have sock puppet warnings although I wouldn't have thought that multiple people attempting to add a news item to an article was a case of sock puppetry.) El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Just wondering what is thought of fan created content on YouTube such as this and this. The videos are created by "The Grand Tour Fans" and consists of fan supplied images and videos with some official video which I assume has been copied from official program sources. Some of it is correct, but it is fan generated. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally no, per even WP:EL. I would guide using if there is reasonable attention given to fan-made content from reliable sources that suggest reliability. For example, in video games there's a channel Valve News Network that covers from the Valve Company in depth. Without other sources, it would not be usable. However, our set of RSes frequently call to this source and consider that source reasonable reliable, so we will use that source (but usually adding the name and using the third-party source alongside the video source to justify). --Masem (t) 02:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Fan made content is exactly that: fan-made. It is not really easy to verify if the fan-made content used fact checking so its reliability can be questioned by anyone. Best to be on the safe side and not use it. I have seen fan-made content that has errors in their presentation too. So the problems can become compounded.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Would the New York Times be considered to have a conflict of interest with regard to 5G reporting? In a partnership with Verizon, they have created a "5G Journalism Lab". Verizon stands to make billions from 5G, and are now the first carrier to offer it.

(Background: This issue came to my attention with this RfC, which uses a piece from the NYT. The article does not claim to be sponsored nor does it mention the partnership.)

How should WP handle any reporting coming from the NYT/Verizon "5G Journalism Lab"? petrarchan47คุก 19:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable, but not WP:INDEPENDENT Not reliable on the topic of 5G but otherwise reliable until proven otherwise. What a fascinating question! After reading the first line of this thread my immediate thought was "of course not - a newspaper having an advertising, or even advertorial, arrangement does not presuppose the separation of church and state (sales and editorial)". However, as you rightly point out, this initiative is being composed by regular NYT staff writers and no disclosures of sponsored content are apparent, despite the fact Verizon - which we would otherwise characterize as having a COI - is receiving a quid pro quo. I would say, therefore, the New York Times does have a COI with regard to 5G reporting since its editorial operation presents the outward appearance of operating as an adjunct of the Verizon corporation's marketing department. (To be fair, I'm sure that's not the case, however, there is sufficient 5G reporting out there that I can't see any compelling reason why we shouldn't proceed with a preponderance of extra caution and avoid sourcing the NYT on this topic.) Chetsford (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As well, the primary owner of the NYT, Carlos Slim, stands to make billions from the successful launch of 5G, with his ownership of American Movil. petrarchan47คุก 20:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I find that unconvincing. Except for The Guardian, all newspapers have always had wealthy owners with a variety of investment interests. The case of the Verizon content partnership is of a different character entirely. Chetsford (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable. For participants' benefit, the source in question can be found here. I don't see the COI. There's no question that Verizon would be conflicted if it purported to engage in independent journalism about 5G, as Verizon is a participant in the 5G market. But just because The New York Times has partnered with Verizon doesn't make it conflicted as well. There is no evidence that the Times has anything to gain or lose by reporting on 5G one way or another. Sure Verizon could try to exert influence its stories, but that's no different than the influence sources try to exert over journalists every day. The New York Times has an excellent reputation for not being beholden to its sources. It literally wrote the go-to book on journalism ethics--and we even cite it in our verifiability policy (WP:QS). If the Times were to violate its own COI rules it would be a major public scandal. Since I don't see evidence of a scandal, I think we can feel fairly safe assessing that there was no COI. R2 (bleep) 19:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. We no longer live in an age where we can presume the separation between advertising and editorial exists because it has in the past, as Ira Basen writing at the University of Wisconsin's Center for Journalism Ethics [46] (among many others) explains:

"Sure Verizon could try to exert influence its stories, but that's no different than the influence sources try to exert over journalists every day." This is actually very different because it crosses the barrier between advertising and editorial, the type of content Basen notes. When Macy's takes out a display ad in the NYT they never interact with NYT journalists nor are they ever positioned as a co-equal partner in the process of creating content. In this case, the Times itself states "we’ve partnered with Verizon", this is not verbiage used to describe a Macy's display ad in the dead tree Times of yore. If the NYT has partnered with Verizon to create content on a specific subject (which it states it has) as opposed to simply accepting an ad that gets slapped wherever, and if Verizon has a COI on the subject, then by transitive relation the Times is also conflicted. Chetsford (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable, but just not necessary an independent source NYtimes not going to lose reliability due to having a potential COI, but that means that we should be wary of taking NYTimes stories on Verizon and/or G5 as independent. What that means for WP is 1) we can't just notability of an article dealing with G5 with only sources from the NYTimes and 2) it might come up in UNDUE discussions whether an opinion on 5G only sourced to NYTimes would be appropriate. But if we're using NYTimes to corroborate details of 5G with other sources, there should be no issue. --Masem (t) 20:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. FWIW there are plenty of reliable outlets that thought the subject was notable enough to mention themselves. Examples: [47][48][49][50][51] None of these sources take any issue with the Times' reporting (or raise any COI concerns). R2 (bleep) 20:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree with this and "Reliable, Not Independent" is a more perfect summary of what I imperfectly tried to communicate. Chetsford (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• It might be important to weigh in on R2's examples of sources that editors might suggest "corroborate", in this case, the NYTimes piece about Russia's 'anti-5G reporting'. Is a mere mention, sans criticism, considered corroboration? In my mind, it would entail an independent evaluation that came to the same conclusions. I don't immediately see anything resembling that in R2's sources (acknowledging R2 didn't claim outright to view the RS as corroborating). Making this clear for future editors would be helpful. petrarchan47คุก 18:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Petrarchan47, sorry to ping you, but can you please strike "nor does it mention the partnership" from your initial comment here? The source in question says: In January, The Times announced a joint venture with Verizon to build a 5G journalism lab. R2 (bleep) 20:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks. petrarchan47คุก 20:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable but not independent As an actual journalist (or rather, a guy with a degree in journalism), the New York Times is basically the gold standard on journalism and journalistic integrity. They have an excellent reputation for having a solid, impartial, and comprehensive news department and routinely write groundbreaking stories on the important issues. I do not think this partnership changes their reliability or throws their reporting on 5G into question without any actual evidence - so they are clearly reliable. I would probably suggest, in this one instance and out of an abundance of caution, using another source alongside the NYT or even in place of the NYT on this issue, but there is no indication they are not reliable on this subject. Toa Nidhiki05 20:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not independent and not to be used for extraordinary claims. So if they publish anything completely off the rails it shouldn't be used but I don't see that happening and I think it is reliable (for non-extraordinary claims). El komodos drago (talk to me) 09:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The original post is a bit misleading. There's no evidence that the source in question comes from the "NYT/Verizon '5G Journalism Lab'" According to the New York Times' annoucement, the lab isn't some sort of outlet for traditional print reporting about 5G; it's a program for the Times to develop new ways to use 5G in the newsroom and new formats for 5G devices. R2 (bleep) 17:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand that initially and it does not impact my view of the non independence of the Times on this topic. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Juan Guaidó (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two articles from Reuters report that Brazil recognized Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela, but they use two different dates. Which is correct?

• "Brazil says it recognizes Venezuelan opposition leader as president" (Reuters, Jan. 12 2019)
• "Brazil recognizes Guaido as Venezuela's interim president" (Reuters, Jan 23 2019)

The relevance is did Brazil recognize Guaido as Acting President of Venezuela before the United States. According to Alonso Gurmendi a professor of international law at Universidad del Pacífico, the original story was misreported.[52], writing on Jan 14 2019, they supported Guaido as president (or speaker) of the National Assembly. He had not yet declared himself Acting President. In any case, all reliable sources now use the later date. For example: "Trump formally recognized Guaido minutes after the 35-year-old president of the Venezuela National Assembly declared himself the head of state. Countries including Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Panama quickly followed the U.S. lead."[53] (Bloomberg, Jan 23 2019)

TFD (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No to January 12, yes to January 23, but then maybe also sorta-kinda January 10? Going by official government press releases, on Jan 10 Brazil's government issued it's support for Guaido to "assume the presidency" and declared Maduro to be illegitimate. But it was on the 23rd that they seem to have made it explicit that he is the president. They then made it super clear a couple days later. [54][55][56][57]. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It has always (How long?) been my understanding that Alumni should be notable and have an article that supports the Alumni claim. It isn't necessary to reference the claim at the institution, as long as the linked article is referenced.

Today I have discovered that sdome editors don't accept this, and have started decimating, and even entirely deleting well sourced lists, unless there is a direct citation for Alumniship in the School article.

Is it possible to clarify this for me? I'll have to apologise to the eds concerned if I'm incorrect. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Its an interesting question, is a claim of being an Alumni valid if the institution doe not list the person as one. Any one can claim to be an alumni, I would assume RS would check. But is its an interview (say) rather then an in depth analysis they may not. I think this may be a case of attribution, say he made the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is inline citations vs. a level of indirection. @Roxy the dog: asserts that if there is an inline citation in the BLP of the alleged alumnus, there is no need for an inline citation in the list of alumni in the school's article. This is a misinterpretation of WP:V and WP:ALUMNI, the latter of which specifically states that alumni status must be referenced. We never rely on indirect referencing here, as articles may be edited at-will, and therefore there is no guarantee that an indirect reference will remain available. Elizium23 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

" When alumni have their own articles in mainspace, it is not necessary for their notability to be referenced, as long as it is done in the biographical articles.".Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand my question. - I'm asking to clarify if an Alum, properly sourced as such in their own article, needs a source at their Alma Mater article, as well as the individuals article. Nothing to do with interviews. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Notability - I have always supported this aspect of it - notability is implied when the subject has an article. You omitted the other requirement that their alumni status must be referenced, and this is not exempted by the existence of their article, nor by the existence of a reference inside that article. Elizium23 (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

e/c I'm not asking about notability. nobody is disputing that. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No, if you read my quoted passage above, but I note that David Ellett contains no mention of any school. So that raises alarm bells about the rest. Before reinserting any alumni make sure they are properly sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Meh. Im asking everybody but you. I know what you think. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I am not sure why this thread is here to begin with: "Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Roxy the dog's question is somewhat outside the scope of this noticeboard. Elizium23 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Its one reason I got the wrong end of the stick.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

... and? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

A fact should be cited in EVERY article in which it is stated. If the fact is “Person X is an alum of School Y”, and it appears in both the bio article on Person X and the article on School Y... it needs to be cited at both articles. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

OK then. That gives me something to do for the rest of my wikicareer. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding individual items to a list appears to require each name to be sourced in the school's article. If we think that is overkill or excessive duplication, then a change in the guideline is required. TFD (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a good reason for the duplication: let’s say that fact/statement “X” is currently in two articles, but only cited in one of them. What happens if this article is re-written at some point, and fact “X” ends up being omitted from the re-write (perhaps the editors decide that it is a trivial detail that is not really important enough to mention). This would mean that, suddenly, fact “X” is not cited ANYWHERE. By repeating the citation in all articles where “X” is stated, we avoid that problem. What happens at one article has no impact on the verifiability of the other. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Where do we sit in regard to press releases? Can they be reliable sources, albeit primary, in regards to basic claims about the subject? For example, if an otherwise notable awards committee announces nominees or winners via a press release, is that press release a reliable source as to who won or was nominated? Alternatively, if a company opens an office, can we use a press release noting that the office exists? - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think what you've outlined is just fine. Press releases can't be used to establish notability, however, to cite basic and otherwise undisputed facts (i.e. non WP:REDFLAG) that we would otherwise allow a company's own website as a source should be fine (e.g. identities of an organization's officers, location of offices, ticker symbol, etc.). Were the content of a press release ever to be contradicted by the content of a WP:RS, the RS should win out. Chetsford (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Chetsford, and will add that the company distributing the PR will also include the ID of the person/company/university that released it. The latter makes it easier to verify. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with everyone. I would also note that there is a potential WEIGHT issue. As with a company's official website, I would use a press release to flesh out important details of something already discussed in a secondary source. I would not use it as the basis for new content unrelated to anything already in the article. In the case of the building, if an article already had a well-sourced section about "XYZ Corp. is deciding where to erect its new headquarters", I would be totally fine using a press release to update that section. In the case of awards, for sufficiently notable award programs, absolutely. I'd cut out the middleman even and prefer primary sources for the basic facts of who won what. This sort of belongs to Wikipedia's almanac-like aspect. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with both of the above. Also, I'd add — insofar as profitmaking companies are concerned — that we should consider a hierarchy of press releases. Press releases from publicly traded companies, at least in the United States, expose a company to significant liability if they misrepresent material facts, whereas those issued by individuals, non-publicly traded companies, and organizations have the full scope of protection of the first amendment. I can imagine a situation in which a sole proprietorship or non joint stock corporation, wanting to inflate its appearance, claimed offices in 10 cities when in fact it was a single person working out of his basement. A press release from a publicly traded company issued through a major wire service such as PRNewswire or Businesswire can presume the authenticity of basic, non-WP:REDFLAG facts (e.g. office locations, officer names, founding date, etc.) until proven otherwise by a RS. Other press releases should be approached with healthy skepticism. Chetsford (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• The example I had in mind was simply in a list of their three offices in an infobox, one of which is in city X, a press release showing that they are located there. To discuss the office in depth I agree that secondary sources would be needed for weight. - Bilby (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Press releases have some limited uses, but they can be used effectively with attribution. Many times press releases are preliminary announcements and incomplete so better sources should be used if they are available. For your two contexts: new office opening up or announcements of nominees/winners, press releases should be ok. Might have to attribute to be transparent that the press release is from a legitimate source like a news organization or other fact checking organization and not a random organization or website.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Press releases typically fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF rubric. They're reliable about the publisher of the press release or its affiliates, as long as it's not unduly self-serving and there's no legitimate concern about its authenticity. However, press releases carry little to no weight, as their overt purpose is to promote the subject. Therefore, when it comes to things like awards, there there should generally be some additional showing of noteworthiness to get over the WP:NOTEVERYTHING hump. Otherwise our articles get larded up with obscure, meaningless awards. R2 (bleep) 17:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• The big problem I find is that they're a major flag for two forms of bad article:
  • corporate promotional puffery
  • BLP promotional puffery

  - and usually with the telltales of undisclosed paid editing.

  If you find an article with a pile of press release links, it's almost certain to be one of those two.

  It's certainly possible to apply press release links judiciously with good judgement. In practice, I find that press releases as references are overwhelmingly indicators of one of those two things. But don't take my word for it - do a linksearch on prnewswire or businesswire and tell me what the article space results from that look like to you.

  I tend to find that replacing a press release reference with a ((cn)) or just deleting the non-notable claim is pretty much always appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting approach, but apparently not the standard view. If you are leaving the claim but removing the source, it seems that you don't view the claim as puffery. If the source is independent of the subject and reliable, then it is better to have that press release than an unsourced claim. - Bilby (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Press releases aren't third-party RSes and just don't belong where a third-party RS should go, e.g. a BLP. Though as I stress, in almost all cases the claim is also puffery, and so quite removable - and I urge you to actually do linksearches on press release sites, and see if your estimation of the sort of articles they're used as references on is anywhere near mine - David Gerard (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you still miss the point. Let's take this revert on your part. Clearly being awarded the Japan Prize is notable, and presumably you felt so, as you didn't remove the prize. The reference used was a press release from the Japan Prize Foundation]. I can't see how the Japan Prize Foundation can be considered unreliable in regard to who they awarded the Japan Prize to. They would know. It is independent of the subject of the article - Jacques Miller - and clearly states that it was given to him. As such, it might be argued to be a primary source, but we can use those. By removing it we now have an unsourced claim that Miller won a major prize where we used to have a reliably sourced claim, and your only given reason for removing it was "rm claims cited only to press releases - not a WP:RS for Wikipedia" when it is, in fact, a reliable source, you didn't remove any claims, and we have no policy or even consensus (in spite of your claims to the contrary) insisting that we remove press releases. Overall, removing it has made the article worse, not better. There are inappropriate uses of press releases, but a unilateral decision to make blanket removals whether or not it is an inappropriate use isn't the correct approach. - Bilby (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

What you meant by asking this general question was a specific example, then. Again - since you're asking a general question up the top there, without having brought up the example you were thinking of - we should be speaking in terms of the general issue.

You asked up there "can we use", and trying to claim that justifies "therefore they shouldn't mostly be removed", which is actually a different question and not at all the one you were asking. And I already answered you on my talk page that there were circumstances in which we could use press releases, and in which I had.

So - I urge you to actually do linksearches on press release sites, and see if your estimation of the sort of articles they're used as references on is anywhere near mine. Please do report back with your results - David Gerard (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You have been deleting press releases with the effective rationale "because it is a press release". The question here was whether or not that was a valid reason. It was not. Individual instances may or may not be acceptable, but clearly you can't simply delete them because you have an issue with press releases in general.- Bilby (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You're working really hard not to address why they might be - and, as far as I can tell, are - mostly a huge sourcing problem. For a third time: I urge you to actually do linksearches on press release sites, and see if your estimation of the sort of articles they're used as references on is anywhere near mine. Please do report back with your results, before making fresh statements. Please try to understand the actual problem. If you disagree, then please, by all means, report back accordingly with your numbers and examples! - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware with issues around press releases. The problem is not that there are issues - the problem is that you are reverting the good with the bad without (or even against) consensus. - Bilby (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You're claiming a consensus on a question you didn't ask, as I've noted. Given you clearly don't even want to examine the issue, it's not clear how to meaningfully respond to incoherent claims that you are literally refusing to do your homework on - David Gerard (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The question was - can press releases be regarded as reliable sources. The consensus is yes, with caveats. On those grounds they shouldn't be automatically removed as unreliable - you will need to make a case as to why a given press release is unreliable. I am very willing to accept that they will be unreliable in some or even many situations. - Bilby (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Press releases are sometimes useable for non-controversial statements to fill details not mentioned in higher quality sources. There is also usual question of due weight - if independent reliable sources don´t cover some information, is there any need to include it in the article? Myself, I would replace a press release with better source, once available. Trivial facts mentioned only in press releases probably have no place in encyclopedic articles. Pavlor (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • IME, press releases are overwhelmingly a case of WP:NOTBROCHURE - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTBROCHURE is about the content of articles and use of links. It doesn't say anything about sources. - Bilby (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Some of the objections here to press releases really don't make any sense to me. I think Bilby is right. If it has been decided that some fact belongs in an article, and that fact is essentially that a person or group announced something, cite the announcement. It's not like the announcement becomes more trustworthy by getting filtered through another outlet - it's true because someone said so, this situation is literally the exception to argument to authority. I completely understand the argument that secondary sources are desirable for demonstrating that this fact is significant (I would actually cite both). I also completely understand underlying concerns about interpreting primary sources. But if it's been agreed that the statement is true, and it's been agreed that it belongs in an article, removing the definitive source doesn't make sense. Tag it with a request for an independent source if you want. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
        • This is my view as well. One of the ones he removed was a citation to a legitimate journalism award at Sharyl Attkisson. We had already had an extensive discussion on the talk page as to what awards should be included and what sources would be acceptable - the indiscriminate removal of this citation, and the noted award, ran contrary to this consensus that had weeks of discussion. More importantly it made absolutely, no sense because if an award is notable, there is absolutely no reason a press release containing a list of all nominees and/or winners would be unacceptable. IMO it's actually the most reliable thing to source because the list will be completely accurate, while a list in a newspaper or another website might be wrong or omit some awards and nominations. There are purposes where primary sources like press releases can be notable. At the very least, indiscriminate removal of press releases is not the way to do things. Toa Nidhiki05 04:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Over at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland a post was made referring to this [[106]], as an "academic" source. Now as far as I can tell [[107]] is social networking site with no editorial control or peer review, they publish anything uploaded. As such I am unsure if this can be considered an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• academia.edu itself, "not reliable", for the reasons mentioned. However, papers on academia.edu may have also been published in reliable sources. In the case of the paper linked above, it asserts that it was included in Zagłada Żydów. Studia I materiały (Holocaust. Studies and materials) Issue 2 (2006), which may well be a reliable source. See also: [108], [109]. - Ryk72 ^talk 12:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• (ec) Academia.edu is a social networking platform for academics - where journal articles are often posted. It is not a source in and of itself. The link you are sharing - was published by Studia i materiały - ceeol link to this specific article - which probably counts as a reliable peer reviewed source (journal website). The academia.edu link - is just something available online without a paywall.... It is likely to be reliable for the fact this was published (particularly given external corroboration + that the person posting this on academia.edu is the author)... But it is not the publication itself, but a copy thereof. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Concur with Ryk72 with an added note that Academia.edu is a particularly aggressive social networking site when it comes to demanding access to email and other personal data to read articles, so i would recommend changing references to reliable sources copied over to Academia.edu to the host reliable journal whenever possible. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No, not in itself. We have to treat each paper there separately for RS purposes. academia.edu is not a publisher. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Academia.edu is not a reliable source itself, but the articles you cite from there are usually from reliable sources like journals. Researchers often post their articles there so it is a good database for finding actual research papers that have been published elsewhere from reliable publishers. Therefore, if you find an article - cite it from the journal itself, not academia.eduRamos1990 (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-kingdom-in-the-closet/305774/

The Atlantic itself fits WP:RSP but this article is self-published under WP:RS ans WP:SELFSOURCE. It fits wp:cherrypicking and wp:bias since it is a one way article. In addition, Nadya Labi herself may have wp:bias herself and the source can't be verified going against wp:veribilty so unless her piece can be proven as correct and not exaggerated it could be wp:fakenews. Finally, it is not able to be compared and backed up by another source confirming what her claims are about secret homosexual activity in Saudi Arabia so it can be wp:1R as well. Moneyspender (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Your post does not make sense to me. Are you proposing that this article be used as a source for a Wikipedia article of some kind? Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not apply to news articles, but to articles here on the project. Please clarify whether there is a dispute and/or a particular article here on Wikipedia which you intend to address. Elizium23 (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi this source is being cited in the article LGBT_rights_in_the_Middle_East but it don't think it applies because of the countless violations against Wikipedia standards. Moneyspender (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC) I want to know if this is considered a reliable source or not given its difficulty to be verified and trusted as a source talk. Can you please assist in clearing up the vagueness given all the issues I mentioned. Thanks. Moneyspender (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable. I don't think your arguments apply the mentioned policies and guidelines correctly. As you've mentioned, The Atlantic (RSP entry) is considered a generally reliable source. This article is not self-published, becuase it was published in The Atlantic, not the author's own website. As an investigative journalism piece, it presents accounts of several Saudi Arabian people as case studies; it is common for journalists to give specific examples of a phenomenon, and it has nothing to do with WP:CHERRYPICKING, which tells Wikipedia editors not to cite information from articles out of context. You haven't presented any evidence that the author is biased, and opinionated articles are still allowed to be used with in-text attribution, which was done in Special:Diff/904829271. The Atlantic is an external source, which satisfies the verifiability policy, and WP:FAKENEWS is a baseless assertion, not a policy or guideline. Finally, the LGBT in the Middle East has more than one source, so WP:1R doesn't apply. Additional citations are required to substantiate extraordinary claims, but this particular article is reliable and adds support for these claims. — Newslinger talk 23:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable - basically, Newslinger covered it. The article is not self-published, as Labi is not the publisher of The Atlantic, but rather a freelance writer with a respectable list of clients (Atlantic, Wired, Mother Jones, etc.) WP:Bias is not a guide to using sources, it is an essay on Wikipedia editors. WP:Cherrypicking is meant to be a limitation on how we edit our articles, and is not about how sources are created. When we discuss verifiability, we are not discussing checking that what the source says is accurate, but rather that the sources says what we claim it is saying... and that source is very easy to verify, because it's available online without a paywall. (I at least assume that "verifiability" is what the OP meant by "veribility"; please correct me if I'm wrong.) Seeing that the Atlantic is a generally reliable source, there is no reason given to believe that this is a WP:Fake news situation. WP:1R is an essay about single-sourced articles lacking sufficient notability, but this is not a single-sourced article and your complaint is not about notability. I doubt that WP:REICHSTAG applies in this situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable until proven otherwise. Issues raised by OP don´t even make sense. If your main problem is some POV presented by RS, your only way to balance NPOV in the article is to find another high quality RS. Pavlor (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• I was directed to this discussion by Newslinger when they posted it on Wiki Project Africa. As stated therein, I think they were in the wrong project as this has nothing to do with Africa. In any case, I've read the article and did not find any issue with it. The source is reliable as per our policy. I don't know what the OP's issue is. Homosexuality is rampant in Saudi Arabia and the whole middle east so I don't know what the OP is objecting to.Tamsier (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa is listed as one of the projects at Talk:LGBT in the Middle East. I probably should not have notified this project since the article from The Atlantic focuses on Saudi Arabia. Sorry for the confusion. — Newslinger talk 11:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• selfgrowth.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Recently noticed here (obvious SEO refspam). I then noticed 11 extant uses in main space, some pointing to dead pages there. The FAQ suggests that any user who signs up becomes an "expert account" and can submit articles (WP:USERGEN). There's a special trusted group that may be equivalent to Wikipedia's autopatrol group. When looking at a few articles, they are obviously promotional, like [110] which seems to be an ad for tickets. Since no RSN entry existed for it, I'm adding one to the record. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Evidently WP:UGC - can this be blacklisted? GirthSummit _(blether) 20:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the COIBot report, if that shows enough spamming, a request to blacklist it will be filed. It could still be filed without the report, but those reports are very helpful and convincing evidence. —PaleoNeonate – 22:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Self publishing source. It does not really have peer review or show expertise so it is not good to cite on Wikipedia as a source.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No remaining use in mainspace, but still waiting for the COIBot report. —PaleoNeonate – 18:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Is a this a reliable source?:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/mek-and-bankrupt-us-policy-iran-35982

Article to be used in: People's Mujahedin of Iran

Thanks :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Only with attribution to Paul Pillar. As the "fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University and Nonresident Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution," his opinion on matters related to Iran are definitely due note but, they remain his opinions and should not be reported as fact. Simonm223 (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

as above, its a blog.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It's the opinion section of nationalinterest.org. Pillar is a notable academic and his opinion is WP:DUE as an opinion. But it's opinion and has to be situated as such. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I get that I was agreeing with you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Wow, did you know that 33% of americans are in favour of dropping nuclear weapons on [a place], me either 'til I read The National Interest; could be a coincidence but I'm guessin' the sample size of the poll was n=3. cygnis insignis 16:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • They report that n=3000 in the lede of the article. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Furthermore they cite the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as the source. So your skepticism, while warranted, may be misplaced. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Here's the source for the claim. [111] As is often the case with science reporting, they cherrypicked the most sensational detail of something more nuanced, but they're not being misleading. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the TorrentFreak (RSP entry) article "Web Sheriff Sent “Forged” Taio Cruz Birth Certificate to MusicBrainz" a reliable source for the Web Sheriff article? The article is proposed as a source to support the claim in its title (that Web Sheriff sent a questionable birth certificate with inconsistencies to MusicBrainz in a demand for the database to change its information). — Newslinger talk 23:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#TorrentFreak. // Liftarn (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I find it a huge stretch to say TorrentFreak is reliable for information about allegations of a forged birth certificate.

The TorrentFreak article was written the day after MusicBrainz' press on the topic, and simply relates information provided by MusicBrainz. This is churnalism. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So we should disqualify them because they are not a primary source? // Liftarn (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)l

• Reliable with attribution. TorrentFreak contacted MusicBrains and Web Sheriff independently, and published their responses. This is original reporting, not churnalism. If there are issues with the terms "forged" or "allegedly forged", then stick with the facts (e.g. the spelling error in the hospital name). Since Web Sheriff claims that the image was provided by "the client / principal concerned", not produced by the company themselves, this portion of their response should be noted. — Newslinger talk 14:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  To me, it's quite obvious that the image provided by Web Sheriff is a modified version of this birth certificate of Naomi Leafe-Marie Dawson, down to the same image size (568 x 777 pixels) and identical signature. The Dawson certificate was published on this page in 2005, predating the Web Sheriff controversy by over a decade. That page also contains a birth certificate with a slightly different signature, showing that the signatures are not identical across different certificates. My original research can't be cited in the Web Sheriff article, of course, but it supports the validity of the TorrentFreak story. — Newslinger talk 14:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Churnalism. Blogging. Contacting someone does not meet the requirements of RS, let alone BLP. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As noted in previous discussions, TorrentFreak is a respected source of information related to file sharing (including anti-piracy controversies). Its content has been used by other reliable sources (e.g. CNN, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, Variety, The Verge, The Daily Dot, PC Magazine, Ars Technica, Newsweek, Engadget, PC World, Fast Company, and more) and academic publications (e.g. Marquette Sports Law Rev., Carnegie Mellon, UC Hastings). The CNN story uses TorrentFreak's coverage of another action taken by Web Sheriff. Sites like Engadget (RSP entry) are considered generally reliable despite being blogs; TorrentFreak is also well-regarded, although its topic coverage is much narrower.

This particular TorrentFreak article goes well beyond the MetaBrainz blog post to include quotes from "correspondence seen by TorrentFreak" and interviews with both parties in the dispute. Although the TorrentFreak article quotes the MetaBrainz post, a significant portion of the article is derived from new research not found in the original post, and "churnalism" is not an appropriate descriptor for the piece. — Newslinger talk 01:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

There's general consensus that TorrentFreak is generally reliable for articles on the topic of file sharing. So how does this specific article fall under thee category of "file sharing"? --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This article covers an action taken by an anti-piracy company (which TorrentFreak has covered before) on behalf of one of their clients. — Newslinger talk 19:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

So you're claiming that this is in line with the topic of file sharing?

Given all the undeniably unreliable sources that have been offered for this content, that this dispute has been going on for a long time, and the ongoing IDHT problems with the current dispute, it's difficult to look at as something other than a BATTLE (likely COI) situation. Let's look at the ref in detail:

It starts: Anti-piracy outfit Web Sheriff has found itself mired in controversy after asking a music metadata site to change information relating to the artist Taio Cruz. That's hype, and not factual. I don't see the article being reliable for anything related to this, and it's deep into BLP-violating territory.

Of the four sources the TorrentFreak article uses, two are primary and two wouldn't be considered reliable by Wikipedia criteria. As pointed out in the discussion above, TorrentFreak also received a response from WebSheriff, which was used by the author.

It ends: In all fairness MusicBrainz didn’t accuse Web Sheriff of forgery, only of passing a forged document on, but if the certificate is a fake, one has to wonder what the motivation behind it is. Is it a case of genuinely wanting to correct the facts and making a mess of it? Or is there something more sinister at play? In any event, faking a UK birth certificate is a criminal offense so Streisand Effect not withstanding, it better have been worth it.

I'm afraid that's not something that could be used for BLP info. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the TorrentFreak article's own sources make a difference here, since all secondary sources assimilate and interpret primary sources by definition. It is normal and expected for a publication to solicit input from both parties of a dispute that it's covering. It's true that the other sources cited in the article (including The Spartan Daily, discussed here) have been ruled out as unusable sources for this claim, but each source should be evaluated on its own merits and not by the other sources a Wikipedia editor bundled it with. Editor conduct is best discussed at another venue, since this noticeboard focuses on content.

Now, the crux of this dispute is whether the action covered by the article is in the scope of WP:BLP. A liberal interpretation of the facts treats the image of the birth certificate as an artifact transferred from Web Sheriff to MusicBrainz in a demand to change data in MusicBrainz's database; as there is no evidence that Taio Cruz is involved in this demand (only an unnamed "client / principal"), this interpretation does not see the situation in the scope of WP:BLP. A more conservative interpretation treats the controversy as a WP:BLP situation, since the demand that Web Sheriff made relates concerns information related to Taio Cruz. In this dispute, I am supporting the liberal interpretation and you appear to be supporting the conservative one.

This claim is being considered for the Web Sheriff article, not the Taio Cruz article, because it is only pertinent to the company's business practices and because there is no confirmed association between Web Sheriff and Taio Cruz. We already have five sources for Cruz's birth name (the name that Web Sheriff demanded MusicBrainz to remove) in the Taio Cruz article. Note that Web Sheriff confirmed that they provided the questionable image, but they also said that they did not create the image themselves. If the claim is included, the Web Sheriff article should make this point clear.

It would be great to hear from some other editors to break the deadlock in this dispute. — Newslinger talk 08:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the TorrentFreak article's own sources make a difference here We disagree. Sources demonstrate the quality of the work.

We are evaluating this source on it's merits. Care to comment on what I've quoted it from it? It reads as a click-baity hit piece...

Yes, others' viewpoints would be appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the quoted sections, I don't think the tone used in the TorrentFreak article is uncommon for news articles related to controversies. The phrase "mired in controversy" is used by many reliable sources, including the Associated Press, The Atlantic, The Irish Times, The Globe and Mail, The Globe and Mail, and more, for a variety of subjects. CNN (RSP entry), The Register (RSP entry), and The Daily Dot, (RSP entry) have also published articles on Web Sheriff's actions that contain excerpts written in a lighthearted tone: "Welcome to the meme jungle Axl Rose", "In yet another battle for control of his name, image, and funkadelic music catalog, the artist formerly known as The Artist Formerly Known As Prince has launched an attack on the internet", and "Welcome to the internet, Axl. It’s a jungle out there". If the tone of a source should be a determining factor of whether it is reliable, this needs to be written into a guideline and applied across all sources. — Newslinger talk 04:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about tone, and quoting usage of a phrase is meaningless if accuracy is ignored. In this case "mired in controversy" seems grossly inaccurate. Reliability is about accuracy, not tone. --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The source in question: [112]. Puduḫepa 21:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It is honestly really hard to find out anything about this journal. The official website is less-than-helpful, and it doesn't seem to be indexed anywhere. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This is also primary and Mitochondrial-DNA and Y-chromosomal studies often controversial. It would be best to use reviews. —PaleoNeonate – 23:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The author made WP:REDFLAG interpretations. That's why I have asked to the community to find out whether it is a peer-reviewed study or not. Puduḫepa 04:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I am having issues verifying the journal site myself. It is pretty barren. But I did find another site for it [113]. It looks like the author is from the National Academy of Sciences in Armenia, and the journal does say ""Biological Journal of Armenia" is functioning under the auspice of the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia and publishes original papers in botany, zoology, physiology, biochemistry, biophysics, microbiology, biotechnology, genetics and other fields of general and applied biology." [114] On the author submission it looks like there is peer reviewing [115].Ramos1990 (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The leaked memos are not being decried as fakes by the UK government.[116] See [117] etc... AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, CNN was able to confirm, it seems. UK government official confirmed Saturday to CNN. But either way, it doesn't seem like a big story. --SVTCobra 05:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• We can use (with in-text attribution) the CNN (RSP entry) article and the other reliable sources that cover the memo, even though it was first published in the Daily Mail (RSP entry). Reliable secondary sources are able to assimilate information from a variety of other sources in their research, including primary sources, self-published sources, questionable sources, and other sources that should usually not be directly cited in Wikipedia articles. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 257 § A question related to the Daily Mail, which discusses this type of situation in general. — Newslinger talk 05:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• blackamericaweb.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I first noticed it here then saw that there were 100+ citations in WP. I couldn't find a WP article or previous RSN thread about it and for some reason can't access the site, but according to Google it would be a gossip and entertainment site. —PaleoNeonate – 22:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like it is not a RS. In the "about us" section of the site it does not say that it does something like peer review [118]. It is a generic online site, but their review process is not disclosed.Ramos1990 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. Black America Web's original content consists of gossip in the form of Media Take Out and BuzzFeed's entertainment content. However, the site is mainly a news aggregator, and most of its articles are syndicated from sources including Associated Press (RSP entry) and other sites. If an editor wants to use one of the Associated Press articles, they should preferably cite the original source (apnews.com) or find a more reputable republisher. — Newslinger talk 23:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Per a discussion at this AfD I was hoping to get some feedback as to whether or not "Dice-rolling systems in RPGs" is a WP:RS for information on privately held Canadian companies. (I'm afraid I have no further information on it other than the title, though there's a possibility it might have been written by someone whose surname, or possibly first name, is "Morgensen".) Thanks, kindly, in advance. Chetsford (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I don´t think burden of proof is upon you. Editor proposing this book (?) as a source should provide at least a catalogue entry to prove this source exists. There is not much to discuss without knowing other details (eg. publisher). Pavlor (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The person who mentioned that is being weirdly evasive. I don't know why you didn't find it on Google Scholar, either, though: here. I can only imagine no link was provided because it says basically nothing about the subject of the AfD. I can't find any evidence it was actually published anywhere other than the web, which isn't a good start. More research could be done in that regard, otherwise it would come down to the extent to which the author makes it usable as a self-published source. Regardless, though, it doesn't support anything in the AfD anyway, so it's kind of moot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why anyone is having trouble finding the source; it is actually the one you found, a self-published article by Torben Mogensen within his field of expertise. The "silhouette system" discussed in the article is an intellectual property developed and used by the subject of the article and has no individual authorship.

As far as my being "evasive", please AGF, and perhaps this and the related diffs will give some context relevant to the current AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just saw someone ask for more information or a link regarding a source you mentioned, and it seemed like you edited many times while pointedly refusing to give that link. That read evasive to me, but there may indeed be additional context/backstory I'm unaware of (I don't have time to go through that ANI to look for clues at this time). Regardless, this doesn't really need to be a thread on RSN since even if it is a well-regarded author's SPS, it doesn't add anything to the AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for locating it, Rhododendrites! It appears it is named "Dice-Rolling Mechanisms in RPGs." The commenter in the AfD modified the name and called it "Dice-Rolling Systems in RPGs" which is probably why I was unable to locate it. Coupled with them declining to provide a link or DOI number, it seemed suspect. (It still does, but now it can be critically evaluated at least so thank you, again.) Chetsford (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram? regarding using Breitbart as a source. Your input would be a big help in reaching a consensus on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This seems like the appropriate venue, rather than that page. No, it is not a reliable source. A good part of their income comes from hate views, so I don't even click through. cygnis insignis 06:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought about putting the RfC here -- or perhaps BLPNB -- but as I correctly predicted, certain misguided editors think that it is a good idea to post lists of shit sources that deliberately tell lies as long as it is done in Wikipedia space and not article space. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Not only do they have a bad reputation for fact checking and reporting (which caused them to be considered generally unreliable), but since they have a conflict of interest (like the DailyMail), in that they are not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia, their reporting is likely to be flawed and exaggerated. I'm sure that as usual, if there's something important and notable, papers with a better reputation have reported on it. —PaleoNeonate – 07:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it might be for their view of it (but I am not sure why that would be of interest), but no not for any factual reporting.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, I'll be really blunt here, Stormfront, Daily Stormer, info-wars, Brietbart etc are neo-Nazi/alt-right propaganda outlets. They are total and utter rubbish, barely an accurate word has ever been published by these disreputable and disgusting fraudsters. The debate has been had and the result was clear - these trash outlets must never be used to cite anything. Bacondrum (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)