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.

For the interested, Haaretz on WP:s deprecated sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yup, Facebook believes in freedom of speech, we don't: WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Also, “anyone can edit” should be changed to “anyone can edit constructively”. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Nah... anyone can still edit... it’s just that nonconsructive edits will be removed or amended by other editors. Blueboar (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can attempt to edit _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Then certain things cannot be said, thus no freedom of speech. (soapbox alert) this at its heart if the problem with certain attitudes towards absolute Free speech. It is regarded as not only the right to be wrong, but the right to outright lie. This may be partially true, but us not allowing it is not different from me not being able to right for a major newspaper or walking into Number 10 to call Boris a liar to his face (or come to that to go into any of your houses and launch a foul mouthed tirade at your kids).Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Haaretz's choice to refer to deprecation as "delisting" halfway through the article is odd, and their phrasing suggests that we have some sort of immutable hierarchy of validity for various types of publications, but otherwise it's a good read. Their decision to counterpose our against Facebook's content moderation is interesting, and in an ideal world would motivate Facebook to try harder, although I'm not sure the comparison is entirely fair because the goals of the two platforms are rather distinct. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• What bothers me is that this article shows how most people have misunderstood what “deprecation” means... it is viewed by too many as being a “ban” on using certain sources. However, it is SUPPOSED TO BE a more nuanced “limitation” on usage. Almost every RFC that resulted in “deprecation” includes carve outs and exceptions... situations when the source IS acceptable. We need to do a better job of explaining that. Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Based on the way that some editors are removing the two deprecated sites mentioned there from articles, it clearly does not mean limitation on use to them. I've seen editors remove it and add ((cn)) for innocuous facts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah it is a defacto ban. If it was meant to be or not really does not seem to matter unfortunately. PackMecEng (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• I've seen the same thing as Walter. It's one of the reasons why I've universally opposed deprecation. Springee (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• All content, even innocuous facts, should be sourced to RS, unless they are clearly "the sky is blue" type facts. If a fact is only mentioned on unreliable sources, then we can't be sure it's true, and even if true, it doesn't have enough due weight. See my comment below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• May I suggest you raise that point to the film project and TV project? It is their collected opinions that once a film has been released or TV program has aired the need for sources has ceased, going so far as removing sources that have been supplied up to that point. There are other projects that have taken similar stances, but those are the two that irk me most. However, WP:V does not support the ubiquitous need for sourcing you espouse. It only goes so far as to state "all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Walter Görlitz, I find that rather disturbing. We don't accept IMDB because some of its content is crowdsourced and thus not reliable enough. Is "no source at all" somehow more reliable? They are on a slippery slope, and inline citations must be provided if any content is challenged.

I'm not sure if there is any discrepancy between what I wrote and the WP:V policy. The "inline citation" must still come from a RS, and that applies to all article content. Otherwise, basic facts that are of the "sky is blue" variety don't need such citations.

BTW, I'll happily modify my statement, so please continue to discuss and critique it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

All the film and TV people are saying is that a film, TV episode or book is its own reference. But this only applies to what is actually in it. If you are acknowledged in the credits, then that is fine; but going beyond that by saying that we heard somewhere that you were a ghost-writer is WP:OR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, those are primary sources, so one must be careful. We can use primary sources for uncontroversial facts, but not much else. For example, we cannot use them for interpretation. Without secondary RS, we cannot know what weight to give that information, so such content can be challenged. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Deprecation should have only one exception: "can only be used in its own article, and then only if it's not unduly self-serving." All our content, facts and opinions, must be sourced solely using RS, with that being the only exception. Since my research includes reading content from both RS and unreliable ones, I will often find details in unreliable sources which might be factual, so I then search RS for those facts. If I can find them, I'll use the RS. If they are not found in RS, I can't be certain they are factual, and even if they are, they don't have enough weight to be mentioned, since use in RS guides our determination of due weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to give one example of an exception specified in RFC: Daily Mail - old reporting (from historical days when the Mail was under different management) is considered reliable. So, at a minimum, we are SUPPOSED to check when the report was published before we remove it. Context is important. It bothers me that people are ignoring this. Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Is there a cut-off date at the deprecation notice? -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it's just something someone said in passing in the RFC. Nor is it clear if this was before or after "HURRAH FOR THE BLACKSHIRTS" - David Gerard (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• In Wikipedia terms, this is pretty straightforward: if, like OANN, a site has a history of publishing conspiracy theories or falsehoods without robust fact-checking and retraction, then including any content from that source puts Wikipedia editors in the position of arbiters of truth. We have to decide which stories are true and which are false, rather than allowing the normal process of journalistic checks and balances to do this. We can only do that by seeing if sources we consider reliable, say the same thing. And if they do, well, we should be using the reliable sources instead.

That's what deprecated means. You can't trust it without verifying from another, more reliable source, in which case why would you not use the more reliable source instead? Deprecated is not the same as "generally unreliable", it's a specific outcome we reserve only for sites that are sufficiently deceptive that we should never use them. I personally would never use the Washington Examiner for anything, but it's not deprecated. WorldNetDaily is. That distinction is valid and entirely consistent with the five pillars. Guy (help!) 11:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

A problem for Wikipedia

The point is made in Haaretz that the preponderance of right-wing sources among our deprecated list is interpreted by conservatives in much the same way as Twitter bans on hate speech: most of the affected sources are conservative, therefore this is anti-conservative bias. Obviously it's not, but there are more liberal Wikipedians than conservative (for reasons that are inherent to what Wikipedia is) so we need to work doubly hard to be sure we hold all sources to the same standard.

I have given this a lot of thought recently, and the discussion above re. the Haaretz piece highlights an issue I think we need to address more clearly: reliability versus bias (or, as Springee put it above, WP:V versus WP:WEIGHT).

• A biased source is likely to be treated as requiring attribution.
• An unreliable source is likely to be deprecated.

Bias and unreliability correlate (albeit rather asymmetrically, see below). We have deprecated only a few of the hyper-partisan left sources because, with a few notable exceptions, they are still more accurate than hyper-partisan right sources, so we treat them as biased (attribution required) rather than deprecated. Not always: AlterNet is generally more unreliable than the deprecated Breitbart. IMO AlterNet should be deprecated, and you could make an argument that based on current data Breitbart could be "generally unreliable" rather than deprecated (albeit that this would make little practical difference).

Our challenge as Wikipedians is to demonstrate that our decisions about source reliability are based on solid, rational, empirically factual grounds, and not on our politics. Part of that is ensuring that sources are treated similarly according to their position on objective bias / accuracy axes. Some sources only rate on political leaning, and that's dangerous for at least two reasons:

1. Fox News online and CNN cable have similar levels of bias but fact-checking shows CNN cable to be more reliable than Fox News;
2. Wikipedia treats bias and accuracy separately.

Bluntly, I do not think we should ever use any source outside the Ad Fontes "green box of joy" as a source of fact. That would put The Daily Beast, CNN cable, MSNBC, Mother Jones, The Intercept and so on outside the realm of usable sources for facts - at least in articles on current politics. In my view, nothing of value would be lost.

Proposals

I guess what I am arguing is that we should do a few things to formalise the way we conduct discussions that may result in widespread changes to the project and external commentary.

1. Segregate WP:RSP into two or three blocks: one for general websites (VHChartz, TV Tropes and the like), one for media, and one for actual fake news (News Front etc).
2. Introduce a template for RfC discussion of sources (that is, the entire source rather than one or a few uses of it for a specific fact).
   1. Include an assessment of impact. Deprecating WorldnetDaily, Occupy Democrats or InfoWars has no real effect on Wikipedia because no competent editor would use them anyway, but deprecating Breitbart and the Daily Mail had a substantial impact.
   2. Be explicit about the difference between bias and accuracy, and include this in debates.
   3. An RfC for any source with more than $THRESHOLD number of uses (perhaps 1,000?) should be advertised at WP:CENT.
3. Agree a consistent set of tools for assessing reliability, that minimises the possibility of political bias - so, look for right-leaning fact check sites, and exclude all fact-checkers that do not assess media from both sides of the spectrum.

What do others think? Guy (help!) 14:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the argument for any sweeping changes (and I'd even disagree with your "a problem for Wikipedia" framing.) The Haaretz piece largely praises our system; the way we do things now is working, on the whole. Our articles - the high-profile ones, the ones that get enough attention and focus to avoid getting hijacked by a single committed editor, anyway, which is the real risk but only happens on peripheral topics - are largely accurate, reliable, and evenhanded. Yes, if you zoom in close on the talk pages there's a ton of ink being spilled in the AP2 topic area, but if you zoom out most of that is actually pretty minor - it's being spilled over minor wording tweaks or a sentence or two that wouldn't be utterly unacceptable either way. Compared to the vast gulf in the world as a whole, we've actually done pretty well at finding consensus. A lot of other coverage says similar things - that Wikipedia has remained largely reliable in an era where many other online information channels are fracturing or showing their flaws. Our system is, mostly, working, so I don't see how that supports an argument for changing direction. Your argument mostly seems to be that people who live in a bubble of unreliable sources are going to look at our articles and see them as biased, but that's always going to be the case - it has nothing to do with the arcane intricacies of how we handle reliable sources, and everything to with eg. our article on Global Warming not saying what the facts-optional talking head on TV tells them it should. That is not something we can fix; the problem is not on our end. --Aquillion (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, don't get me wrong, I am really not overblowing this, but there is no doubt that conservatives perceive a serious bias against them as a result of the majority of deprecated sources being conservative - there's a perception that we deprecate due to bias, and do this asymmetrically, whereas in fact we deprecate due to accuracy and it is merely coincidental that the most biased and most conservative sources are also the least accurate.

That's why I'd like to formalise the RfC process: to show that the assessment is fair. I agree that the issue of conspiracy theorising and outright falsehood in the right wing media bubble is very much not our problem to fix, but it is our problem to manage and I think we could do a better job of it. I am encouraged that you don't see this as a major issue, though - I would be happy to discover that I am being oversensitive to this form of criticism. Guy (help!) 09:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

If you followed that path, here is what you would see: First, to the extent that anyone pays any attention to the change at all, it would be covered, in the sources that the people you're trying to convince trust, as "Wikipedia admits it has a problem with bias against us, takes piddling efforts to fix it." Second, perceiving the change as a sign that sufficient pressure can get Wikipedia to reflect their views, the complaints about bias would increase sharply in volume. Third, nobody who thought the system was unfair before would think it was fair now, because what they actually want is, again, our articles on the hot-button topics they care about to reflect their view of the world (and because, again, by changing policy in response to complaints that it is unfair, you've given people with strong political preferences about our content and policy an added incentive to continue to be intransigent in hopes of extracting more concessions.) And, finally, all those practical issues aside, it would be a bad rationale to change our policies - our goal is not to appear fair, our goal is to be fair. One of the reasons we've been so successful at maintaining factual accuracy when so many other sites have failed is because we categorically reject the false balance of prioritizing the appearance of accuracy. Our job is to reflect the best available sources, not to sell Wikipedia to people (though I think that the site's success shows that maintaining that laser-tight focus on getting things right will, ultimately, be successful at winning people over.) --Aquillion (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarity and thoughtfulness surrounding the deprecation of sources seems like an excellent idea, but maybe not approaching from this direction? Conservatives may often be correct to "perceive a serious bias against them", but are so very often wrong in identifying the causes and horrid at arguing solutions. Sourcing policies on Wikipedia may allow bias to flourish in some areas, but as Aquillion points out working towards the goal of neutrality is "mostly working" on high profile articles. I'd disagree with him tho that this is the "system" working, i would say it is the result of competent and thoughtful editors expending a great deal of effort to make the system work.—eric 13:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Aquillion's comments here, although I would consider perception to still be an important secondary consideration. To the extent that there's an issue here, I would say the easiest way to respond is probably to emphasize the counterexamples that people can point to. The articles tend to mention Occupy Democrats but I've never seen anyone cite MintPress News in this context yet; likewise, Telesur doesn't seem to get mentioned despite being very left-wing by the standards of the American "left-right" axis. If Grayzone (currently still under discussion above) is deprecated then it would probably also be a good example. If that approach is insufficient, or if those examples are challenged for some reason, I suppose there is also the option of making it clearer to outside observers by specifically deprecating a couple more of the thousands of other sources that unambiguously qualify for it. Fake news websites aren't limited by political alignment, after all. Sunrise (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not think we need to separate out fake news. At the end of the day any actual fake news site should be depreciated if not out right banned. I think (part from perennial "but I like it" arguments) RSN works fine.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Proposals 2.0, 2.2, and 2.3 are great ideas, in my opinion. Currently, editors are copying The Daily Caller RfC because it's linked in the instructions at the top of the page, as determined in the 2019 header text RfC. An RfC template could be edited as improvements are identified. For instance, it would be helpful to remind the RfC starter to provide links to past discussions and prominent examples of usage, and it would be helpful to remind RfC participants to consider context. I agree that bias and reliability should be evaluated independently, and that RfCs on frequently cited sources should be advertised on WP:CENT. — Newslinger talk 09:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It was a good read, but paragraph 4 had a falsehood: "Like all decisions at Wikipedia, the addition of a news outlet to the list is determined by a community vote." Everybody makes mistakes. So, I see the site-by-site approach as almost doomed to failure. I agree Wikipedia has enormous problems, and I would not trust articles for anything. The only way to dig out the full story on most topics with any controversial aspects at all is to carefully review edit histories and talk page histories, and this defeats the whole purpose of having articles. I know equal time is not a thing here, but maybe every article deemed to involve controversy should have a certain, limited amount of space available for the proponents of different sides (possibly more than just two) to make their best cases, like debates. As it stands, the more persistent editors suppress almost everything they disagree with, almost including the existence of disagreement at all. Sorry to be so negative. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion is incompatible with the undue weight policy, which states: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views." There are other wikis that are more sympathetic to fringe views, but Wikipedia is not one of them. — Newslinger talk 20:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

When discussing possibly making major changes to solve major issues, referring to WP:IAR seems better than referring to current norms. I acknowleged "equal time is not a thing here," but that doesn't preclude allowing some amount of space to be reserved for presenting "minority" views, to lessen accusations of suppression. Anyway, the issue isn't just "theories" or "science" or even "ideas". Here is a simple factoid example. Let's say someone wants to "follow the money," and answer the question, how much is spent on mainstream climate science research and politics, compared with how much is spent on non-mainstream?

Climate_change_denial#Funding: roughly $900 million

Global_warming_controversy#Funding: TL;DR but has a couple numbers, 1.2 and 16 million

Versus:

Global_warming a couple mentions of funding of scientists who disagreed with "scientific consensus," but no number, and no link, so had to do a search to find:

Climate_finance#Flows_of_climate_finance "estimated that climate finance reached $437 billion"

Shouldn't it be easier to find both numbers in an encyclopedia, maybe in one place? -- Yae4 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"Both numbers"? You've pointed to four types of numbers, and seem to be conflating different things: CC denial funding goes to misinformation and advertising, Climate finance is “finance that aims at reducing emissions, and enhancing sinks of greenhouse gases ...." etc. so is financing action to stabilise the climate, not sums funding scientists of whatever views on CC. Of course, if a reliable secondary source puts together the comparison you seem to be suggesting, then you can cite that. . . dave souza, talk 17:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, Previous editors took the trouble to include an easily found number for "denial" funding, but in Wikipedia I haven't been able to find a comparable number for "mainstream" science and politics funding. I did misunderstand the purpose of "Climate finance," so thanks for that. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of this page, which is about reliable sources – "original research isn't accepted here, and you can't ask others to do it for you. If you're interested in the complexities of funding, you may find Willie Soon's arrangements informative, but here the discussion is about assessing good sources. . . dave souza, talk 22:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, I understand the purpose, but the process and measures for RS determination look completely arbitrary and biased in application, so I don't understand that, for sure. I'd already seen that article, but thanks again. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• My only contribution to this is a famous quote by Stephen Colbert: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias". This is not necessarily true in the world in general, but it certainly is true in the context of these sources. So if Bob ThreeHats is on his laptop, raging that we're not letting him says that Mexicans are planning to invade the USA to be part of George Soros' army based on something he saw on InfoWars/Rush Limbaugh/Breitbart, I really don't see why we should concern ourselves with the appearance of being fair to a person who's idea of being fair means endorsing his prejudice against facts.

Neutrality isn't painting a picture in dull grey when one side says black, and the other says white. See WP:LUNATICS, but apply it to politics instead of science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, Another comment Re: "Fringe theories" as applied to climate change. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories has existed since January 2006,[1] i.e. 4 years before Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change, but there is only one use of the word "fringe" in the Arbitration. By end of February 2006 (new article somewhat stabilized), among 3 examples, climate change was not yet discussed in "fringe theories."[2] Today, there is still no mention of climate change, aside from linking to the 10 year old Arbitration case. [3] Given that "fringe theories" is now being frequently applied to skepticism over climate change predictions etc., shouldn't the Wikipedia position be fully explained in some detail at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories? (Aside: I would suggest including a study that documents how many actively publishing, "climate scientists" have reduced their "carbon footprints" to zero or similar, demonstrating true belief, but I can't find one.) I would appreciate if someone who can explain the Wikipedia position would add a section. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The fringe guideline isn't particularly at issue in ARBCC, and while the guideline includes examples, it's not a prescriptive list and it applies equally to topics not mentioned as examples. What is at issue is weight policy, as covered by WP:ARBCC#Undue weight. As for your aside suggesting "including a study that documents how many actively publishing, 'climate scientists' have reduced their 'carbon footprints' to zero or similar, demonstrating true belief" merely suggest that you don't understand science. So not a good idea for a section. None of which has any obvious relevance to discussion on quality of sources. . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Ouch, add one more not-so-subtle personal attack by an admin to the count. Is there a list of designated admins or other editors who are certified as "qualified" to guide science articles? Saying the wiki-bias problem is about sources is a side step. The real issue is wikipedia has fixed positions on some topics, and "fringe theories" and banning sources with "voting" are just two of the wiki-lawyering methods used to pretend otherwise. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Why would you think that randomly introducing an unsourced non-sequitur that is quite obviously designed to imply some sort of hypocrisy or wrongdoing among climate scientists would be relevant to, or well-received in, this discussion? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Why would you ask a fallacious Complex_question? -- Yae4 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't really see that the Haaretz piece actually indicates anything on our part that really needs solving. Disinformation and conspiracy mongering are currently a larger problem on the political right than the political left, though not to say that it is non-existent on the political left because it isn't. Much of that is probably historical accident, and you can certainly find plenty of instances where the situation was reversed (the French Revolution and the Soviet Bloc spring to mind). Neutrality looks biased to people who are biased. That's not really an "us problem". GMG^talk 16:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Something that I would argue does need solving is the fact that, over the course of 2019, the number of deprecated sources went from 6 to 26. I don't think 2019 was a worse year for fake news than 2018 or 2017. It looks more like editors are starting to ignore the intermediate levels of classification. Connor Behan (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • What I think has happened is that as some sources like the Daily Mail became deprecated, some editors went to other sources to pull similar stories as the Daily Mail; in those types of cases, other newspapers that are going to share the same type of information as the Daily Mail are going to be just as poor as the Daily Mail for the most part. So as more of these new sources get used, we see the need to also deprecate those. It's a small snowball effect. --Masem (t) 19:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Also, deprecation is still a fairly new practice, and the process takes time to go through. I would argue that the deprecations in 2018 and early 2019 mostly acted as test cases that defined how the practice was developed, building on the original precedent of the Daily Mail, and so there was a backlog of sources that we're still going through today. Besides, it's not as if 26 is more than a small fraction of the fake news websites out there (and of course, fake news is not the only cause of deprecation), so we aren't likely to run out of valid candidates any time soon. Sunrise (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

An example

David Gerard (talk · contribs) writes "The source is deprecated - see WP:THESUN - and should not be used at all - even as a placeholder. So I would like to discuss this clearly here. I have seen Gerard remove the source, even for uncontroversial sports reporting as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

See the sun RFC below.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No. This is the correct location. As you can see, @Blueboar:, @PackMecEng:, @Springee:, and @BullRangifer: have voiced opinion here and so the discussion belongs here, not in a new location that David Gerard wants to discuss it at. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Its an example of what? what has the sun got to do with the above?Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the article? "Another British tabloid, The Sun (published by Rupert Murdoch’s News Group), was added this past year, as were similar outlets in Iran and Venezuela. The same goes for the left-wing Facebook group Occupy Democrats, which was delisted as a valid source of information." There was a brief discussion about editors removing deprecated sources and tagging instead of fixing. Essentially equating deprecated with blacklisted. This is an example of an editor removing a reference to a site that we have deprecated rather than 1) tagging is as unreliable or 2) finding a source that could be used in its place. He goes on to complain about me below. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=alignment+dungeons+and+dragons&sxsrf=ACYBGNR6TA-J2BnVmNqv2VRTclm_kwPoHg:1580449827674&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCgcG0kq3nAhUUFzQIHbEjAw8Q_AUoA3oECDcQBQ&biw=1094&bih=474&dpr=1.25

Lots of articles. They OK? How about CBR? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This seems like trivia that shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia article, except maybe in the Legacy section of Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) as examples of how widespread this meme is. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This is completely inappropriate. Guy (help!) 09:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Latinised names contains a long list taken from the book The record interpreter : a collection of abbreviations, Latin words and names used in English historical manuscripts and records by Charles Trice Martin, published in 1910. The list in our article purports to be a list of names "Coined by Anglo-Norman scribes", but in the book it's only stated to be a list of "Latin Forms of English Surnames" - see the Internet Archive copy here.

So apart from the apparently inaccurate claim about what the list represents, my question here is whether such a list of names published in 1910 can be a reliable source for this article in view of the amount of research that must have taken place since then. I've tried raising the issue on Talk:List of Latinised names - noting an earlier concern about the reliability of the list that was raised by an apparently knowledgeable editor in 2012 - but had no response other than being reverted twice when I tried removing it.  —SMALLJIM  20:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

An old book is least of the issues I see here. As you pointed out, that section title is a pure original research. Then, using as a main source some webpage with unclear reliability (coxresearcher.com), which copied data from an old book, instead of the book itself, is not the way one should cite sources in an encyclopedia. Finally, ignoring discussion on the article talkpage and simply pushing preferred revision via reverts is not helping to improve the article. Note revert to the previous stable revision may be justified (per BRD), but lack of communication thereafter certainly is not. Inviting Lobsterthermidor to this discussion. Pavlor (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Pavlor: other problems aside, I'm pleased you agree that there's no evidence that the list actually represents Latinised names that were coined by Anglo-Norman scribes, as the article claims it is. Regarding my second point, a quick search in Google Scholar for '"personal names" latinization' throws up many recent hits (not all relevant, of course), showing that this is a field still under active research. So, getting back to RS, I suggest that this 1910 source is not reliable enough to base anything in this subject area on (other than what was the state of knowledge in the early 20th century). Does anyone disagree?  —SMALLJIM  20:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I will certainly not dismiss a source only because it is over 100 years old. The core issue here is not the source itself, but its use in the article. Nowhere in the book it states these names are for anglo-norman period only, quite the opposite. So, this book "may be" a reliable source for examples of Latin names used in medieval reords and manuscripts, but NOT (really big NOT) as a source for "Latinised names coined by Anglo-Norman scribes". In this very case, the information presented in the article is not sourced at all and the use of this source is grossly misleading. Pavlor (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. It obviously needs to come out of the article. I'll try again, referring to this discussion.  —SMALLJIM  19:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Would this source be allowed to be used in a page about Saudi expansion? https://omniatlas.com/maps/southern-asia/19220505/ 79.67.65.129 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Would the daily beast be RS for the following material in People's Mujahedin of Iran?

• A few months after the executions, relatives were handed plastic bags with their children's belongings. By October that year many thousands of prisoners had been executed without trial or appeal.

I have to note that wp:RSP says about this source that "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons."Saff V. (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You, ah, skipped the most important part "The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, Daily Beast should be treated with caution, but in this case I think the reporting does not align with any of their known biases, so it is probably fine; that said, if it is contradicted by any more reliable source, then don't use. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• I always prefer a better source. In general, if the Daily Beast is the only source, it's likely either hyperbole or WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 22:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't go that far. They're not liars. But sure, nothing wrong with attribution - David Gerard (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with the above. I don't believe TDB is in any way falsifying their stories, but they often a bit empathatic to drive a point to the reader and may use some exaggerated wording. Use with attribution for things that may seem contestable (as the above). --Masem (t) 01:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• This is one of those ones were there is a large disconnect between the news pieces and the opinion pieces. The opinion pieces are to be avoided at *all* costs but the news pieces are generally high quality and factual. Bias does not disqualify if other conditions are met per WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. When in doubt in cases like this I attribute. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• For a website that is "always skeptical" and "irreverent" and having a "sharp opinion in the arena of politics, pop-culture and power, The Daily Beast does not strike me as having as high journalistic standards as The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal, but beyond its frequent opinionated editorials and its rather conversational and sometimes exaggerated language (which can be induced from that About page), it seems that it is considered to be generally reliable. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 01:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Is City A.M. a reliable source for financial news?GDX420 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

What inspires you to ask? - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.cityam.com/revealed-starling-bank-chief-edged-out-as-billionaire-backer-boosts-stake/ At Anne Boden, presumably. The source has been used in a number of articles, See [4] Vexations (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The above website has been added as ref to a leading-person's mention (in this change) within an article about a UK free-to-air television programme, currently very heavily aired. Rather than just revert as non-RS I thought I'd run it by you - actually states "Wiki" - in case you have/have not encountered it. Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, according to our article The Washington Times, "has drawn controversy for publishing racist content, including commentary and conspiracy theories about United States president Barack Obama" and "It has published material promoting Islamophobia", The Columbia Journalism said this about this newspaper, "The Washington Times is like no major city daily in America in the way that it wears its political heart on its sleeve. No major paper in America would dare be so partisan." In 1998 the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram wrote that The Washington Times editorial policy was "rabidly anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and pro-Israel." In a 2016 report, the Muslim advocacy group Council on American-Islamic Relations listed The Washington Times among media outlets it said "regularly demonstrates or supports Islamophobic themes." This is all from the wikipedia article of The Washington Times see history for attribution. You can also see other things like their support for Trump etc. The question is, is this a reliable source for the following paragraph.

However, a State Department spokesman reported that "Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran."

Here are some problems with this paragraph:

• The official is not named.
• The text in the quotes is not found in Google except in the Washington Times.
• We have a report from the NBC, a highly reliable source definitely more than this one, that says

  Two senior U.S. officials confirmed for NBC News the MEK’s role in the assassinations, with one senior official saying, 'All your inclinations are correct.'"

  [5]
• The paragraph starts with "However" which somehow makes all of the previous content claims weak although it is much reliable and much clear.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• I think the Washington Times is an unreliable source due to its history of bias and inaccuracy. There is no consensus for general exclusion, but if there's good reason to doubt a story in the Washington Times then it should be excluded. I never use it at all. Guy (help!) 10:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Guy, I wouldn't call The Washington Times a reliable source either, and the part in the article you're bringing up does seem fishy, if thats what youre asking. SageSolomon (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources , Washington Times is "marginally reliable." I want to note that the NBC News quote above and the Washington Times quote are not actually contradictory (though they seem so at first) -- they are consistent with each other if the US government does not publicly accuse the MEK of this, but anonymous senior officials in Washington also told NBC News that they were involved. The appropriate discussion for such details in on the talk page there, but you may want to consider the idea of including both things. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• It is one of those newspapers that "follow along" the news, but it is also rife with right-wing opinion, never mind the troubling history of the newspaper's bias for whites (like me, unfortunately). It also has failed numerous fact-checks, and apparently is a purveyor of some falsehoods and hoaxes. It is a shame because there are a few decent folks that write or have written for the newspaper. Unfortunately, it has the same mediocre journalistic integrity as Fox News, but hey, at least it is not the Daily Mail! GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 03:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there a consensus then that The Washington Times is unreliable? An editor has intepreted it that way and removed this source from the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

No. This is what The Washington Times - Wednesday, July 24, 2019 (also available on wayback) actually said:

A State Department spokesman at the time said Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran.

Notice two of the differences: no "However," and no quote marks. And that statement is true and verifiable. From the U.S. Department of State, transcript of "Background Briefing on an Announcement Regarding the Mujahedin-e Khalq": a senior state department official (whom the US Department of State chose not to name) said:

And I should add that the United States Government has not claimed that the MEK was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran. And that’s really all we’re going to have to say on that.

Peter Gulutzan (talk)

On a BLP an editor wrote The Daily Wire calls him "a prominent liberal and YouTube host". Another editor removed it as "not rs". Checking that on RS/P I found no entry, here I found two archived sections, 241 and 279. From my PoV the sourced statement is good (=true) enough, but "no RS" doesn't help much in a 4th AFD. Please add some summary, e.g., "caution", to RS/P. –84.46.52.200 (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The site has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In fact, fact-checkers say, "DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified".[6] The site promotes falsehoods about climate change.[7] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The source is reliable for its own editorial content, so this isn't a WP:RS issue. Saying "The Daily Wire calls someone yada yada yada" is reliably sourced to the original source of the quote, per WP:PRIMARY. Since there is no doubt TDW called the person that, it is not strictly a reliability issue. It would be a reliability issue if we were using the source to speak in Wikipedia's voice, i.e. saying "Person X is a prominent liberal and YouTube host". But in this case, it is merely being used as an WP:ABOUTSELF source, for confirming that TDW did, indeed, make that statement. The question you should be asking is "Is TDW a sufficiently well-respected source in this specific field that its statements of this type represent mainstream or well covered thoughts on this matter" That is, it is a WP:UNDUE issue rather than a reliability issue. TDW did make that statement, but we really want to ask "Why does TDW's writing about this topic matter?" --Jayron32 15:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Worth doing the whole RFC thing? I suspect it deserves deprecation for making stuff up, carelessness with sourcing and running conspiracy theories. Certainly generally unreliable, even if it accidentally runs a true fact - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Not really, so far it's unanimously worse than caution. However, alleged "conspiracy theories" trigger my alarm bells, while some folks in this thread might think that this is a brilliant description for, e.g., Jimmy Dore, Abby Martin, or Grayzone, others including me could think that Anya Parampil is a bad case of "woman in red", and that "prioritize authoritative voices, including news sources like CNN, Fox" on YouTube is utter dubious, with CNN as anti-progressive "conspiracy sans theory". Drawing the line at "pizzagate": –84.46.52.200 (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• This fails WP:UNDUE unless it's been covered in reliable independent secondary sources. I can find you a partisan hack website that says pretty much anything about pretty much anyone. Guy (help!) 09:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  If "no rs" turns out to be "only" UNDUE it's no big deal, mainly I hope that somebody is BOLD and adds this source to RS/P. –01:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• The Daily Wire is not much in the way of news, but rather a platform of commentary forwarded by right-wing pundits such as Ben Shapiro. It is akin to Rush Limbaugh's show, another right-wing platform of commentary. While certainly unaffiliated with the alt-right, sources like these are best avoided in favor of non-opinionated journalism such as The Wall Street Journal. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 02:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• The Daily Wire isn't in the list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which ranges from the best to the worst of sources. It might be worth opening a discussion, in the hope of reaching consensus on a brief appraisal for general guidance. Narky Blert (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

  Narky Blert, agree Guy (help!) 16:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the Swedish history magazine Världens Historia reliable? For reference, here's its website, although there's no "About" page and most articles are only available in print. Glades12 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, the ISSN is 0806-4709. Glades12 (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

No opinion... but the fact that articles are only available in print is not a factor. We judge reliability based on the reputation of author and publisher, not medium. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I was aware of that. I was just noting that the website only contains a fraction of all the magazine's articles, so it doesn't give a complete picture. Glades12 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd say generally reliable but not as good as actual history-books. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I came across BabyNames.com used as a source on Abcde to support the statement that this name is unisex. Other news sources such as Vocativ and Insider state that this name is used exclusively for women and girls. I've removed "unisex" from the article for now, but should the source stay? feminist (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable judging from their FAQ page, it's a group operation with unclear methodology founded by Jennifer Moss. I cannot find what credentials she has, and even if she did, individual names don't state who authored the entry. Sadly, most personal names websites do not meet Wikipedia standard for a reliable source. It can be quite difficult to find a good source for seemingly obvious information. buidhe 02:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

SBNation is a sports blogging site owned by Vox Media that consists of the central blog platform and a number of sport- and team-centric sites. The site brands itself as a collection of blogs (SBNation stands for "Sports Blog Nation"). However, this source is used fairly frequently in sports-related articles, especially American ones. I've run into this source a few times doing Good Article reviews, and I would like to know what the Wikipedia community thinks about this source. Is it:

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Although some of the content is written by subject-matter experts, like Geoff Schwartz writing about offensive lines in the NFL, there's overall not a whole lot of fact-checking and editorial oversight beyond what the writers do themselves. As a blog site, I feel like this source is unreliable, but its frequent usage in American-sports related articles suggests that other writers may not share this opinion with me. Hog Farm (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Why did this go directly to an RfC without discussion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Now that the heading has been changed, my question is moot.

None of the above. Its content should be taken on a case-by-case basis. If it is from a recognized expert, it may be used. If it is being used to reference a non-controversial item, such as the score of a game or match, and no other source for that information can be found, it may be used. Opinion should not be used. Most of its content is an extension of team-based trash talk and I wouldn't use it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Depends on the context - Each individual blog or website is different. In my writings, such as 2015 Camellia Bowl (currently under GA review), I’ve used the sites Underdog Dynasty and Hustle Belt, which focus on specific G5 conferences, for basic matchup details, game reviews, etc. For conferences like the MAC and Sun Belt, it’s harder to find comprehensive coverage; I’ve found the reporting and stories here to be solid, and these sites do have editorial staff. Obviously a site with no staff would be unreliable. Also, I’d say most content by Jon Bois is reliable. Toa Nidhiki05 16:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd probably agree with it depends on the context, but I feel like alternate sources would be better. Like you mentioned, Jon Bois writes quality content. However, distinction should be made between his serious reporting and satirical let's-break-video-games output. I think a lot of it depends on the site, especially with the team-specific sites. I'm a Kansas City Royals fan, and the Royals' SBNation blog varies wildly between writers. A lot of the team-specific sites would be considered biased, too. Hog Farm (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it really depends on the writer and the context. Bill Connelly is a recognized expert on college football and statistical analysis thereof; anything he wrote on the subject before he departed for ESPN would be usable. I would be much more wary about team site content. Mackensen (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is the website: https://www.guancha.cn/ It is a Chinese source, and I raised the discussion because I noticed is has been used in topics such as Zhang Weiwei, Arab Winter (Chinese professor Zhang Weiwei first..) and 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. The discussion is not about Fengwen part of the website since it is user-generated, the discussion is about the news and comment part of the website. I believed the website is a questionable source at least in politic since it may be highly promotional of Chinese nationalism. If we needs to cite official statement, government websites and state-run media are more realiable. If we needs to cite nationalism content, Global Times may be more realiable. And how should we treat contents in guancha.cn that are or are not much related to politics?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Mariogoods (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

2 – the source is run by what looks like a think tank based in China (the 上海春秋发展战略研究院) and as such should be treated with caution.^[1] The source syndicates patriotic and nationalistic content made by state media like this article: ^[2]. It should be treated with as much caution as we would with Chinese state media. Jancarcu (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Option 3 doesn't appear to satisfy WP:RS or WP:VERIFY but I see no indication that they have a history of spreading false or fabricated information. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It is hard to tell. I would not say Option 1 because it is state-owned, meaning that the government of the PRC can force the website to say whatever the government believes or propagates as fact. I would not say Option 2 for that same reason. It may be okay to use for non-political subjects, but that is my guess. It is either of the last two options, but I would prefer to use another source whenever possible. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 01:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Option 2 - general caution applies as with all Chinese media outlets: state censorship means fake news or rumour is generally filtered, but political bias is inherent. Useful for uncontroversial factual info, but attribution needed when used for politically sensitive topics. -Zanhe (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to say that the source is frequently using shocking titles, and I believed that its usage is beyond political bias. Mariogoods (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3, probably similar to Press TV (RSP entry). Appears to promote conspiracy theories on issues involving China, as seen in this article currently linked from their front page. feminist (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Everything2 was recently brought to my attention from an edit request. It seems that this site is a fairly open (although maybe not totally devoid of some oversight) repository of user-generated content. They give a brief intro to the site here.

A search for current uses of this as a source returns a bit under 700 results (some of which might be false positives, but most seem to be actual uses). If indeed this shouldn't be used as a source, I wanted to bring this up here for further input. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It's user-generated content with some moderation, I wouldn't really consider it a third-party RS for anything - David Gerard (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Which is about what I was figuring. But given the reasonably large number of hits, what's the best way to proceed here? Is there any process for scrubbing a site like this? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't go feral on it, as it's not deprecated as such - take it one at a time for now, unless and until it appears to be a more serious and/or urgent problem. I would guess (without looking) that quite a lot are very old refs, on obscure topics - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with David Gerard. It predates Wikipedia, and I certainly found it useful in the early days when I was putting together articles, but it's not a reliable source for the purposes of verifiability and it should be replaced as time permits. Mackensen (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I raised this at the boxing project some time ago but with little response, so I'm bringing it here. I see a lot of sources being extensively cited in boxing articles that have (in my view) dubious reliability. I thought it would be useful to have a discussion of whether we believe the following satisfy WP:RS or whether they are really just glorified fansites that should not be cited:

• https://www.badlefthook.com
• http://www.boxing.com
• https://www.boxing247.com
• https://www.boxinginsider.com
• https://www.boxingnews24.com
• https://www.boxingscene.com
• http://cyberboxingzone.com
• https://fightnews.com
• http://www.saddoboxing.com
• https://www.worldboxingnews.net

There are probably several similar sites that I haven't listed. These seem on a par with the many music webzines that we generally don't accept as reliable sources. The fact that they may list 'staff' isn't enough in itself. If any of these genuinely satisfy WP:RS, all well and good, we can all use them, if not, they need to be removed. --Michig (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Desmog blog (aka desmog.uk, desmog.co.uk, dsmogblog.com) is used as a source in tens of articles. [8]

DesmogBlog is also used as a source in tens of articles.[9]

From their abouts, they appear to be a couple group blogs.[10] [11]

They have been discussed at RSN a couple times, and consensus appeared to be more non-reliable than reliable, and definitely not neutral (e.g. "PR blog and advocacy group").[12] [13]

They were recently left in a couple articles by an experienced editor who was removing other sources.[14][15].

Reliable source that should be widely used at Wikipedia, or No? -- Yae4 (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Group blogs can be reliable if they have solid processes (e.g. Science Based Medicine, which is considered RS in its specialist area). The About page shows a lot more input than the average group blog. I don't know if it's reliable or not. At least it has the advantage of supporting the mainstream view. Guy (help!) 16:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Not neutral; definitely generally reliable. Cambial Yellowing❧ 23:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

No. Occasionally there have been exceptions to the rules that user-generated content is "largely" unacceptable, but the about-us shows it's partisan (so should be "viewed with suspicion") and not largely composed of extablished experts (so the exception for experts won't apply), it's been known to be slow to admit an error (see the article about them). The judgments in the prior discussions that you showed are correct. I definitely do not mean that it belongs on some essay-class page about what's generally reliable|unreliable, but the question "should be widely used?" would deserve a definite "No". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Islamic eschatology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the article for Islamic eschatology I am using authentic Islamic sources to support the notion that when Jesus (Īsā) returns he will proceed to do the following: 1)abolish the jizya, 2) destroy the cross and 3) kill the pig. Here are the relevant sources from reputable and authentic Islamic primary sources (sahih hadith):

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/46/37 https://sunnah.com/muslim/1/296 https://sunnah.com/bukhari/34/169 https://sunnah.com/abudawud/39/34 https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/36/153 https://sunnah.com/bukhari/60/118

The two hadith below, (while also supporting this notion that Jesus will return and destroy the cross, kill the pig and abolish the jizya) also indicate that the final religion will only be Islam and no other "religious values" will be practiced as it states in the chapter heading:

Chapter: The descent of 'Eisa bin Mariam to judge according to the Shari'ah of our Prophet Muhammad (saws) https://sunnah.com/muslim/1/298

...He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. https://sunnah.com/abudawud/39/34

The individuals with whom I have entered into an edit war do not want to admit that these are Islamic claims made in Islamic sources. Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crucs (talk • contribs) 15:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Crucs: have you notified them about this discussion? Doug Weller talk 19:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm one of the editors who reverted Crucs' edits, but I hope that other editors can also participate. The main issue that I see is that this is a primary source, a controversial dividing quote (similarly to if I quoted from the bible without scholarly context or with my own interpretation), while a secondary source by a scholar would be needed. Another editor also expressed concern about the scope (quote from an edit summary: "Israel-wars are not part of Islamic eschatology. One is politics the other is religion/mythology." (diff - quoting VenusFeuerFalle). —PaleoNeonate – 22:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

To be honest I don't know how to notify them.

Here is a link to Islamic secondary source:

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/43148/the-muslims-beliefs-concerning-the-messiah-eesa-ibn-maryam

• I was also involved i the reverts, sorry for my late answer. First I want to clarify the use of sources. "https://sunnah.com" is an online library for hadith translations. This rises the question: Is it authorized by other than its own authors? Otherwise, everyone can go and make a webpage translating hadiths. Next, there are some objections regarding the source "IslamQA". IslamQA is not really a secondary source, neither is it neutral. IslamQA gives out ansers within the vague "Salafi-framework" of Islamic perspective and does not put Islamic traditions within their context. Such Islam scholars answer within the system, but do not analyze the religious phenomena "Islam". In contrast, a scholar of Islam (Orientalists, folklorists, socialogists, philosophers) gather all informations available and describe how Islam deals with Eschatology within the belief. Islam scholars on the other hand, describe Islam from within, they do not write about that Muslims actually believe, but that they should belief and form the Islamic canon. Academics, describe, Islam scholars "Judge" (comparable to Evangelicale Priests, who might argue for a young earth and base the "fact" on the Bible, because the Bible is "Authentic" and therefore, the world has to be created in six days). That leads to the next issue: IslamQA is, as already stated above, a Salafi based webpage. It does not represent Islam as whole, but within that they regard as "authentic" (here "Authentic" stants for beliefs, that should be accepted by Muslims, not that their judgement is based on academic criteria). You might use, IslamQA as evidence for the point of view within the Salafi-Community, as you might use a statement by a person representive for a certain movement, but the authority of IslamQA is not beyond their own framework. When IslamQA states "it is not part of Islam, to believe Muhammad existed prior to Adam" but actually, this very idea, developes in Islam (where else?), it is part of Islam. An Orientalist for example, might explain, the phenomena of the belief in Pre-Adamic Muhammad within it's cultural shape and might even come up to the conclusion, such depictions root in the earliest developments, while a Salafi-scholar, following a "demystifying approach", does not support the idea, since he excludes, everything not mentioned in "authentic hadith" (it is an expresion. "Authentic" hadith do not meet the criteria for authencity in a historical sense, but give an overall overview nevertheless) as "Unislamic" (no matter, how rooted an idea is within Islam). But you can use IslamQA for example, to show that certain Muslims among the Salafi-community believe (note: there is a common misconceptions I encoutner frequently, that "Salafis" are something like "bad Muslims" or "terrorists". This is not true. Salafis are simply Muslims, who regard the Muslim faith as altered and try to find a "pure version" of Islam, that is often in odds, with how Islam was shaped the last centuries. To such "Puritanian Muslims", I am referring, just as academics do, when I am using the term "Salafi". I guess in media, "Salafis" are usually depicted as "dangerous", but that is biased.) Now I would like to turn to the approach of adding the content about "Jesus killing strikes". When we search for sources, used within a specific religion, it is primary research. We can not look up for hadith or Quran verses to support our views and say "look! This is that Islam tells us!". It does not matter, how veryfied a text is within a specific religion. It is not about the authencity of the primary source itself, it is about doing original research. On Wikipedia, we do not write about our own discoveries from texts, we just gather that others have done before us. When an academic source refers to a quote from a hadith or the Quran, when we might highlight it by a quote. Using IslamQA, just to verify that the source indeed exists, doe snot help, it is basically saying X is true because of X. When we write "Jesus will destroy the cross", it is like we write about something that actually happens, while it only will happen in the Islamic belief. SO we must go a step further: "Muslims believe Jesus will destroy the cross". Now we face another issue: Do Muslims believe this? IslamQA, who does not deal with that Muslims actually belive, but that they (according to their opinnion) should believe, it is (again) a reason not to use it as a reliable source, again it writes like "Jesus will destroy the cross (because it is stated in Sahih Buhari)", same issue as above. An academic source will write in like this: "According the Sahih Buhari, Jesus will come back and destroy the cross. A prophecy appearing in works of X, Y, Z. In the years of 1XXX it was identified with (for example) the Byzantine Empire. In later centuries, scholar A used this hadith to give hope against Western colonialization powers." When we have clear information about the effect on Muslims and Islam. When there is no reference in all this resreaches about Islamic eschatological ideas, when it was probably not noteworthy. THis leads to another problem: Context! Such notions are rather something for the "Jesus returns" sections I guess. The article is about "Islam Eschatology" as whole, not about "list of Islamic end-time prophecies". How does a cross breaking Jesus effect the discussions of Ghazali and Ibn Sina about resurrection? It does not. Therefore, if there is a source giving context (for example, how Muslims scholars interpretated the Hadith) when please add it in the corresponding section.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Crucs: since the reference to Jesus in Bukhari seems to be important to you, but finding sources troubled you (that is common if someone is new to Wikipedia, what I think you are, since your name is still red), I have done some research today and made a section about Jesus return in the Eschatology article. There are indeed some references within secondary sources. I also used two Quran quotes, to highlight what is written within the source and I am hoping I could provide you an example about sources. Further I hope you like the added section. If there are still questions remaining, we can also keep on with the discussion here, but I wanted to note, I have done an edit including the hadith the edit-war was about (but more in accordance with Wikioedia reliable sources guidlines).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it an ok source to use in biomedical articles ? Walidou47 (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Walidou47, DiagnosisPro is a device. Can you clarify exactly what source that you are referring to and what article content it supports? buidhe 03:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: it would have been helpful for the OP to provide links but I think it's clear that the OP isn't referring to a device. I'm fairly sure they are referring to a website, in particular the defunct http://en.diagnosispro.com [16] There's an archive of their main page here [17] Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that it can be used on that article. It's certainly not MEDRS compliant. buidhe 05:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I found in an archive in the project wiki medecine a discussion regarding the website DP. And I agree with the arguments in defavor of using it.Walidou47 (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the nrc.nl reliable for following claim in Qasem Soleimani?

• In his later years, he was considered the second most powerful person in Iran behind Ayatollah Khamenei.

Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm no expert (and don't understand Dutch), but that's NRC Handelsblad, which appears to be considered at least mostly reliable. Glades12 (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No, because the article doesn't say that. Nothing remotely resembling that claim appears in the newspaper article. They call him "a key figure in Iranian foreign and defense policy" (Dutch: "een sleutelfiguur in het Iraanse buitenlandse en defensiebeleid") NRC is a high-quality newspaper, and generally reliable, except for claims it doesn't make. Vexations (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vexations: Is that intended as a reply to my comment? Glades12 (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No, sorry. I meant to reply to Saff V. I'd fix the indentation, but then this reply wouldn't make any sense.Vexations (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It actually says further down: "...Soleimani, die werd beschouwd als de machtigste man van het land na opperste leider ayatollah Ali Khamenei", or translated: "Soleimani, who was regarded as the most powerful man of the country after supreme leader ayatollah Ali Khamenei." --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

At Talk:Josip Pečarić, several editors have insinuated that Balkan Insight and N1 are not reliable sources. [18] [19] The core of the dispute is whether Pečarić's far-right and fascist apologist views should be included in the article. Balkan Insight and N1 are among the English-language sources that have reported on Pečarić's past actions and remarks. I would like to hear what the community thinks and whether the articles that Balkan Insight and N1 produce are WP:RS and not "partisan hit-pieces", as one user suggested. For convenience, the articles in question are:

1. Defending Hooliganism Does Croatia No Favors , by the academic Christian Axeboe Nielsen (Balkan Insight)
2. State of Denial: The Books Rewriting the Bosnian War (Balkan Insight)
3. Book Event Questioning WWII Crimes Planned for Zagreb Church (Balkan Insight)
4. European Court Rejects Croatian Footballer's Fascist Chant Suit (Balkan Insight)
5. Croatia's Church Must Fight Ustasa Nostalgia Sincerely (Balkan Insight)
6. Simon Wiesenthal Centre urges Croatia to ban Jasenovac revisionist works (N1)

David Eppstein, Joel B. Lewis, Russ Woodroofe, Red Rock Canyon Calthinus, Sadko, as well as uninvolved but prolific Balkan editors such as Peacemaker67 and Resnjari, are welcome to join the chat. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh lord. For everyone else unfortunate enough to come across this: AB refuses to discuss the quality of sources except to express indignation that anyone would demand such a discussion, and in particular has put forward the idea that a piece clearly labeled "opinion" should be used as a reliable source for things it doesn't actually say. Also of course AB completely misrepresents what is the "core of the dispute". So. Non-garbage input on the article talk-page would be welcome, however. --JBL (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Always a treat to read your reasonable, well-balanced and courteous responses, your most esteemed and enlightened excellency, Mr. Lewis . Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It appears to me the way forward on this one is clear. No one seems to object to the proposal of about 30-40% of the article being his historical revisionism episodes, and 60-70% being about his esteemed career. What the article needs is someone to gather sources and do the writing to implement this -- then, the dispute will abate, I believe. For now, imo, a condensed version of the scandal section could be restored.--Calthinus (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Calthinus, but I explicitly wish to gather community feedback about whether Balkan Insight and N1 meet WP:RS. I'll be starting a WP:DRN separately. For the record, plenty of non-fascism-related stuff was removed recently. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Amanuensis Balkanicus For my part, I would absolutely regard Balkan Insight as RS. Very familiar with it -- they have very good and balanced coverage where much media that is considered RS fails awfully. Where opinion pieces are concerned, they can represent important POVs that readers value, but having a page dominated by them is bad. That's why I'd reiterate my call for further community involvement - the solution is someone adding material.- --Calthinus (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Just in general, Balkaninsight (of which i have used) is RS. Yes, their headquarters are in Serbia, but they have a large network of journalists from all corners of the Balkans and are an independent organisation. They have reported on corruption in the region and have at times fallen foul of the Serb, Albanian, Macedonian, Kosovan and other regional governments. They have relationships with other RS news outlets like the Guardian, Independent, Economist and they have been quoted in research etc by Oxford, Columbia, Yale and other notable universities [20]. N1 too fits the bill of RS, they are an affiliate of CNN and are similar to Balkaninsight. I would say that if any news articles are used, that it’s ones that are just straightforward news articles, analysis or a feature, of which two thirds of the links provided by AM are. If it’s an opinion piece or comment, even if it’s by reputable academics, journalists etc, best left out to avoid issues of POV. I won’t comment on the larger issue of the Pečarić article itself as i was not involved on the page.Resnjari (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• The disputed section's length compared with the rest of the article makes its addition the very definition of POV pushing and a breach of BLP. A much shorter version of the section can be added, but only if sourced to articles by BalkanInsight and N1 that are not opinion pieces. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Balkan Insight and N1 are some of the best RS on topics related to the region. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

My only contribution to the page was to remove a section that I thought was poorly written and grossly undue, and I don't believe any of these articles was used as a source. I don't know a lot about Balkan Insight, so I don't have much of an opinion on how reliable a source it is in general. However since you've pinged me, I'll try to give some comments about each of the articles you've listed and how I think our policies apply to them.

1. This was published under the "blog" section of Balkan Insights. As per WP:NEWSBLOG, we should be careful when looking at sources labeled as blogs by news organizations and examine them on a case-by-case basis to determine how they should be used. This one is clearly an opinion column, and thus can only be used as a source for the attributed opinion of Christian Axboe Nielsen, and certainly not as a source for controversial claims
2. This seems like a regular news article, presumably subject to the publication's regular fact-checking.
3. This also appears to be a regular news article.
4. This one never mentions Pecaric.
5. This one is an opinion column and can only be used as a source for the attributed opinion of Sven Milekic.
6. This one appears to be a news article, and can be used for factual claims.

If it is determined that Balkan Insights and N1 are generally reliable for this kind of content, then I think numbers 2, 3, and 6 can be considered reliable sources for factual claims. This article probably needs a section about the controversies surrounding Pecaric's extreme political views and historical denialism, but what that section should look like is a different question. The text that existed in the article until recently was far too long, far too detailed, and relied far too much on quotations. Given the size of the article, I think a few sentences giving a summary of his activities and the criticism he has received would be best. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

See while I do agree with a lot of this, the matter of Pecaric peddling varying levels of genocide denial should not be deleted outright. It is valuable material; though yes it was poorly written. Yeah the version you're criticizing looked like an attack page which even for denialists isn't something we do, views should be attributed, balanced as appropriate depending on what we find in other RS, and his actual career needs expansion -- but I don't agree with the current version of the page where the material is missing.--Calthinus (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for you well-thought-out and detailed response, Red Rock Canyon. I agree with Calthinus. The reason that the WW2 views section was so detailed was because another user had falsely accused me of misquoting one of the articles listed here. Since the Goldstein and Goldstein book isn't available on Google Books (I found the relevant parts in a local library), I didn't want anyone to accuse me of mischaracterizing Goldstein and Goldstein, and so I figured that using extensive quotes would nip such complaints in the bud. The Goldstein and Goldstein parts should be reinstated IMO, but condensed. This can be further discussed on the talk page, not here. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

As i was not involved on Pecaric article, i will say this from a generalised point of view. If they did/said/published it, they own it, and if they repudiated those views later in life, they own that too. So if a person has engaged in genocide denial through their works or other means, that is notable and deserves to be mentioned in a person's wiki article -as long as it’s based on RS sources.Resnjari (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This is all completely reasonable. The only problem here is that the people who care the most about including content labeling him a denier have been unreceptive to feedback about how to do that in an appropriate way. --JBL (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The best way might be consulting the BLP board with a concise message asking for help (and avoiding long winded back and forths in the thread).--Calthinus (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been tried; I would say that the discussion there is basically similar to the discussion here, but it didn't result in anyone actually doing the work :). --JBL (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• The question here is about whether the mentioned sources are reliable. Whether the article needs expansion or balancing is a matter better dealt with in an iterative process on the article talk page than here. Balkan Insight is clearly RS. I'm not familiar with N1, but it seems to be reputable. Opinion pieces on Balkan Insight or N1 need to be attributed intext by profession and name (ie "the historian James Bloggs considers...") and not provided in Wikipedia's voice. Quotes can be used, but care needs to be taken to not unbalance the article with opinion quotes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• This seems to be a case of wrong venue. While I'm not familiar with Balkan Insight, N1 is definitely notable. However, this is a question of WP:UNDUE. Is this person as eminent as a pundit as he is as a mathematician? I'll weigh in on the article talk page. Daß Wölf 21:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this source reliable for the following material in 2020 Iranian legislative election article?

• On 27 January 2020, Mahmoud Sadeghi , a former member of Iran’s parliament and a candidate for this year’s elections has announced in a tweet that middlemen have asked him up to $300.000 to have him passed by the guardian council.

Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• The source is a radio station page [21]. I am not sure how much oversight is done for their reporting, but I would not use that source here on Wikipedia. If the story is notable I am sure that bigger news outlets like more prominent newspapers would certainly have reported it too eventually. Those would be better to cite on this particular story since their degree of oversight is certainly knowable.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• foxchronicle.com  

Found in a series of edits by SaltySnow (talk · contribs). I removed most of them, mostly movie reviews, but thought these were worth discussing:

In Economy of North Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Trade with China represented 57% of North Korea's imports and 42% of exports.^[1]

In Pope Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Although in September of 2018, Vatican-China relations cooled as an agreement was signed that allowed the Pope to override the Communist Party’s appointment of bishops.^[1]

I'm having a difficult time figuring out what foxchronicle.com is. A dressed up blog? A really disorganized attempt at looking like a news organization? If they have a statement somewhere about themselves, I'm not finding it. --Ronz (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz: Looks like a dressed up blog to me. Should not be treated as a reliable source as there are no descriptions about the organization or any editorial standards.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This website does not look like a legitimate news organization so it does not look usable for here on wikipedia. I cannot find any info on "About us" or similar pages on their website so I cannot establish that it is a RS.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. These confirm my concerns. I've removed these uses. None are left. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

A part of this issue has already been discussed on teahouse but this seems to be the appropriate place to raise this concern.

I am creating the article of Stelth Ulvang, a multi-instrumentalist and songwriter who has co-founded the Front Range-based band Dovekins and is a long-time touring member of The Lumineers. I have checked that he is notable as per the guidelines and it can be cross-checked by an other guy.

I have many citations from reliable sources regarding the article but there are some contents that are not available. Regarding those, i contacted him personally and then eventually through e-mails. I have an e-mail sent by him where he shares all those informations. And the good thing is that even though all kinds of informations can't be cited by e-mails; birth date, birth place, family relation and etc. are informations which always follows WP:NPOV and hence if a source says it or it is the person itself, it won't make any difference. I just need the allowance to add these basic biographical information in the article and then cite it by a footnote (consisting the link to the discussion) or a consensus in the talk page of the article itself. Pesticide1110 (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, of course not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Pesticide1110 has a conflict of interest)the fact that they are in communication with the subject and gained their consent to write about them) that as of this writing they are declining to formally disclose. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

BLP sourcing issues aside, there would be a problem of verifitability (as mentioned in Teahouse discussion) and due weight (if there aren´t third party reliable sources about some information, it probably should not be in the article). E-mails may be useable as some guidance when looking for reliable sources (to get historical behind the scenes background), but are next to unusable as a source for Wikipedia. Pavlor (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I would think that unpublished correspondence would always be unacceptable as a source. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

E-mails themselves are not acceptable on wikipedia for the reasons cited above. It is hard to verify if an e-mail is legitimate and also it could lead to WP:COI. If the e-mails are indeed notable, I am sure that a news outlet, which has some degree of oversight, would be able to report on the situation. Fake e-mails are produced all the time.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• weaponsandwarfare.com  

Being used, somewhat unsurprisingly, in a lot of articles about wars, weapons and so on. Their about page contains no information other than philosophising about the subject in general, nothing about who the authors are and what their credentials are. As it's nothing more than a wordpress blog with a domain name it would appear to be completely unreliable, but thought it best to get a second opinion before embarking on a removal spree. FDW777 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections to removing all use of this source. Weapons and Warfare is about a seemingly unrelated publication in the 1960s, and I cannot find anything else about this blog online. When reliability cannot be determined, I believe it's best to not assume it. Glades12 (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable—looks like a run of the mill self published blog. buidhe 20:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable. This is a blog, and not (as I half suspected) a series of articles scraped from the partwork, which is cited in a non-trivial number of actual books. Guy (help!) 17:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: I think you can go ahead and remove the uses now. No one has objected. (Getting this out before the thread is auto-archived.) Glades12 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I missed this; not a big deal, but I'm curious as to what the objection is. I'm a Sources diva (take a look at any articles I've worked on), but I've read a number of the topics posted on this blog. They are definitely written by someone who knows what they're talking about, and can string sentences together. They're often better than Wikipedia articles.

In an internet stuffed with rubbish, we should be encouraging efforts like this, not dismissing them because they don't fit the rules. Maybe "Better Source Needed" but simply removing it on the grounds you don't know who they are seems wrong.

Tell me what it needs to be considered "Reliable", and I'll contact the owner; see what we can do

Also, I genuinely have no idea what this means; "...a series of articles scraped from the partwork, which is cited in a non-trivial number of actual books." Robinvp11 (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

In this edit, this edit, and these edits Erkinalp9035 (talk · contribs) added a citation to www.reddit.com, a discussion board. Is this site suitable for citation in Wikipedia for the purpose of establishing that a certain phrase, "Freedom units", is part of the English language? Jc3s5h (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard the phrase "freedom units" outside Wikipedia. Sounds like propaganda, best kept in its natural habitat (a blog). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have heard it before, but reddit and quora are not reliable sources. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have also heard it, but the sources I have encountered use the phrase to also include nonstandard US-specific units (like american football field). Erkin Alp Güney 19:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• A meme on reddit is scarcely a source at all. The problem with WP:USERGENERATED "sources" is that if someone wanted to establish any "fact" they can do so in about ten minutes, regardless of how wildly untrue or patently silly it is. No source is worthless is simply false. References to reddit, quorum and urban dictionary are indeed exactly worthless. GMG^talk 13:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• No, never. Sites such as Reddit have no editorial oversight at all, and even when someone on the site manages to prove someone else wrong, most subreddit moderators won't bother removing the offending post. Also, Wikipedia:reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves (the only cases where a source considered unreliable may be used) states that there must be "no reasonable doubt as to [the source's] authenticity" for it to be used in such a case, and a username is not proof of authenticity for any entity. Glades12 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

A Nation.Cymru source has been used as the sole source to support a "Controversy" section of a BLP, at Zoe Williams, so I thought I'd better check here whether it counts as a reliable source.

I declare a conflict of interest here because I was one of the people who criticised the subject on another website in relation to her Guardian article. It would not have been my choice to add the "controversy" section to the Wikipedia article, although I did subsequently edit the article in order to replace a potentially slightly confusing summary of her words with a direct quotation.

Any input welcome.

Thanks. --Dani di Neudo (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest here too as the creator of the Controversy section. The op-ed has clearly been controversial, as the language comments been reported further The Guardian, Daily Post and other sources. But if you feel a word other than Controversy is appropriate then I'm open minded to change.

As for the source's reliability, I have found Nation.Cymru has lately been one of the most extensive sources of news and commentary on Welsh topics, at a time when other sources are a bit thin on Welsh coverage. It does publish opinion pieces, and like any newspaper or website, that raises WP:NPOV issues. However there is a large body of balanced work there and the site is edited by a lecturer in Journalism who previously edited the Welsh Government funded news service Golwg360. Seems to pass the smell test to me. Llemiles (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not think the issue is necessarily the reliability of Nation.Cymru. A quick reading of the reference in question cites criticism by two people, Guto Aaron and Rob Humphreys. They both appear to be simply random people on Twitter who have criticised Zoe Williams. Considering how easy it is to upset two people on the internet, does their criticism really need a "Controversy" section? FDW777 (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, FDW777, that summary gave me a good laugh. I did a search though and there are multiple stories on it quoting multiple people (in addition to those two). I don't suppose we could title the section Minor kerfuffle on social media? Yeah, I didn't think so. I would have gone with Criticism for the section head, as it's really just a matter of her writing something that some other people disagreed with. Schazjmd (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I've certainly found many a section on Wikipedia titled Controversy/Controversies which would have been more appropriately named a "minor kefuffle" so I appreciate your sentiment. I'll go with Criticism instead. However you have posted this on the Reliable Sources noticeboard which specifically queries the reliability of the source. If you say "[you] do not think the issue is necessarily the reliability of Nation.Cymru" then I'm not sure what else we're debating. Llemiles (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I wasn't attending so much to the location of the discussion. On that aspect, I don't see anything questionable in Nation.Cymru as a source. They have an editorial board, subscribe to the Editors' Code of Practice, and label opinion pieces to distinguish them. Our article describes it as "generally praised as balanced" but notes that it's been criticized (by a blogger) as being biased toward Plaid Cymru. I would consider it generally reliable for news. Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The location of the the discussion isn't relevant, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy so there's no bar on discussing problems relating to the reference you're asking about. My problem with Nation.Cymru isn't reliability, but one of giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint specifically the opinion of two completely random people from Twitter. If other stories about this incident exist as has been mentioned by more than one person, then they should be cited instead in particular ones that quote someone a bit more well known than "Guto Aaron and Rob Humphreys". I don't believe any article about a living person merits a section titled "Controversy", "Criticism" or anything else based solely on an article they've written having been criticised by a couple of random people on Twitter. FDW777 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• This website is also the reference for describing her as "Welsh". She used to be "English" and (in the infobox) born in "United Kingdom". Now she is "Welsh" and born in "Wales" (but where?). Given she both went to school & now lives in London, this looks dubious to me, and I'm minded to reverse it. She doesn't have a detectably Welsh accent either. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Perhaps should be treated as a usually reliable but partisan source? feminist (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Some regulars here were kind enough to help out at Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where some committed editors had trouble understanding the limits of appropriate self-sourcing. I now have the same at Mises Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where the majority of the article's content was drawn from the institute's own website but removal is being reverted.

There's also an issue with ((infobox institute)) which was not updated after the mission and slogan parameters were removed from ((infobox organization)) (from which it was cloned) per WP:MISSION - see template talk:Infobox institute. Guy (help!) 14:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The new pages patrol is hosting its first discussion of sources from regions affected by systemic bias, starting with Ghana, and editors watching this page are invited to participate. This discussion is being hosted in order to better equip new page reviewers to be able to assess articles about subjects in these regions, and is intended to build editor’s basic familiarity with sources. You can find a past discussion of this proposal here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I was wondering if [25] is a reliable source for an article?

Thank you!

Alwayslp (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Alwayslp, probably not. Please clarify (1) which article and (2) what content it supports. buidhe 17:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply...it is not referring to a current article. I wasn't sure if it could be used in the future. But I understand it probably won't work as a source.

Thanks again, Alwayslp (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

As an "about us" page from a business's website, it would be considered reliable only in a very narrow sense (see WP:ABOUTSELF) for basic, uncontroversial information about the business itself. HOWEVER, it has no ability to confer notability on the subject of the webpage, NOR should it be used for any information outside of basic information about the business. --Jayron32 19:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors. Is BetaKit (https://betakit.com/) a reliable independent source? Or are its articles press releases and sponsored content?—Anne Delong (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Presumably you are talking about Draft:Jodi Kovitz with four BetaKit references (of 22). On first glance the site looks suspicious for me, some Google news mixed with "startup" + other apparent promo content. The first of 2,109 uses of BetaKit on enwiki also don't strike me as RS. € 0.02 from the EU-IPs: –84.46.53.249 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's where I came across the BetaKit site. I am trying to improve the referencing of that draft, but I find it sometimes difficult to find non-promotional info about people whose main activity seems to be promoting things. Thanks for your input—Anne Delong (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinged the CA project, more input would help. –84.46.52.252 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I found some other sources for most of the info, so I deleted the BetaKit ones. It would still be nice to know if this source should be avoided. Thanks for your help.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Is classicrockrevisited.com [26] a reliable source? I see editors here using it fairly frequently for album reviews but as near as I can tell, it's just a now-defunct personal website started by one guy in his parents' basement, rounded out by a couple of inexperienced volunteers he may or may not have even met, publishing articles [27] they've written (One of the "writers" boasts that he emailed the website years ago as a fan and was immediately offered a writing position no questions asked!). I see no indication of editorial oversight or a reputation for fact checking. I say it's nowhere close to passing WP:RS. Opinions? SolarFlash^Discussion 20:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty accurate description. I know the bar for RS in music is pretty low, but I don't think this qualifies. buidhe 21:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hm, I was going to agree based on the above descriptions, but an internet search shows a fair amount of news publications citing Classic Rock Revisited, which is the other main metric for reliability. It's not like Rolling Stone or NYTimes is citing them, but there's Blabbermouth a grab bag of local papers. I wouldn't trust them for BLP details, but their album reviews may be reliable enough. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, sure, but the opening comment applies: the bar to RS in music articles here is extraordinarily low. Blabbermouth would fail abysmally in any other subject area. Guy (help!) 10:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Being cited by other prominent sources would be a sign of reliability. However, in this case, I think the willingness of such sources to cite the above website is more a reflection on their (lack of) reliability than on the reliability of classicrockrevisited. Although again I note that the issue here is WP:UNDUE rather than reliability; the site is can be reliably cited for the writer's own opinions in their own reviews. It's just that these reviews are not due any credence because, as noted, this is basically a personal website. --Jayron32 13:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

One of the main criteria for exclusion as a reliable source is the fact that the content is user generated, and therefor classicrockrevisited.com's editorial review/oversight would be limited at best and may even be completely non-existent. I would say that until that oversight is established, we have absolutely no way to confirm this source as reliable. I don't see classicrockrevisited.com being any different than Discogs or Metal Archives, in the sense that both of those sites (and there are many many more) are deemed unreliable for the exact same reason. What is the rationale for saying that classicrockrevisited.com 's album reviews may be reliable when other similar sites are prohibited? We either accept user-generated content as reliable or we don't. And the long-established rule is that we don't. SolarFlash^Discussion 13:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Because reliability means "can we trust this site to verify information in a Wikipedia article" If the Wikipedia article says "John Doe, writing for classicrockrevisited.com, said yada yada yada", it is a perfectly reliable citation to actually cite back to the quote itself. That's what we should do. The issue is, since classicrockrevisited is a minor, unimportant source, citing the opinion of its writers would be granting undue prominence to those writers. --Jayron32 14:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

If a reliable source mirrors an assertion from an unreliable source - citing the unreliable source as the source of it, can that assertion then be added to a Wikipedia article as reliably sourced if only the reliable source is cited? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Depends on the origin of the claim and the source that it's cited in. If it's a news article citing Wikipedia, definitely not. There are academic books that make extensive use of Wikipedia as a source, which I wouldn't cite if I noticed it.

On the other hand, genuine historians and other researchers start with unreliable primary source material and records, producing from them an entirely reliable source. buidhe 17:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be in respect of discussions at Talk:Death of Harry Dunn. If so, then I disagree with the description of laundering an unreliable source through a reliable source. More accurate is that one contributor has challenged, including deleted, content which is based on comments from notable persons (inc. government ministers) supported by legitimate references inc. a newspaper of record. The one contributor has tried to use Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources because the first news reports were from a newspaper associated with The Daily Mail.--SnowyMalone (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it seems those notable persons commenting have far more faith in the claims made by the Daily Mail The Mail on Sunday, than does Wikipedia policy. Or, more likely (as most people have now assumed), they know the claims are true. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I've had no problem where, say, the NYTimes links to a nominally unreliable or of unknown reliability, in an attributed manner, to include that, but keeping the same attribution from the reliable source. That is: if NYTimes cites "BlogWithNoEditor" for a fundamental fact, I'll use that with "According to BlogWithNoEditor..." and use the NYTimes piece to cite that. But as noted above, the RS needs to be very much good quality for this; I'd not use a weaker RS if the claim being made is potentially controversial. --Masem (t) 17:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

But isn't the notorious "DM" officially listed in the Wikipedia list of forbidden words? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

To be accurate, the first news reports were from The Sunday Mail not The Daily Mail. Anyway ... the content which the one contributor has challenged and deleted is supported by references that include The Times (which is a newspaper of record), The Guardian, The Independent & The New York Post.--SnowyMalone (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, The Mail on Sunday, so I have adjusted my comment above, thanks. All of those sources you have listed there are perfectly good WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

True, but that does not mean they are always wrong (after all a broken clock is right twice a day). Indeed this is pretty much what the %RFC about the DM said, if its significant an inclusion worthy RS would have picked it up.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Multiple worthy RS have picked it up.--SnowyMalone (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I get that. My point is it does not matter who first said it, only who repeats (or even finds it indpendantly) it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

There is but one contributor making an issue of whom said it first (not me.) Also:

• the challenged / deleted content is not about the claim itself but the reactions to the claim ... this an important distinction as the reactions are from notable persons (inc. 2 government ministers) and these are supported by a number of worthy RS.
• the claim itself has been noted as being confirmed by another (non-DM, non-MOS) source: 'Sky News confirmed an American woman charged with causing the 19-year-old's death on a road close to RAF Croughton had a background in the CIA.' [28]--SnowyMalone (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I was looking more for guidance on the general principle, triggered by this contribution to a different discussion (same article though) yesterday. Events may have moved on, but I was concerned by this remark, claiming that these sources were good enough to support the assertion: "The Guardian, iNews, ITV News, Mirror and The Telegraph. I was not looking to bring today's discussion here. As far as I could see yesterday, they were all merely re-reporting the Mail's "scoop", for which there were no other contemporary reports. Regardless of the results of any subsequent investigations reported today, could we consider that yesterday's assertion was reliably sourced via the re-reports? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

My view would be that editors should try to form a consensus based on the source's status at WP:DEPSOURCES and the extent to which the claim has been disputed. In this case, I would suggest the source was right to be used. The Daily Mail, although problematic, is not highly unreliable. Claims in say, The Sun, would be more problematic, and if it's in the Onion then we obviously know where to go with it. On top of that, there was no noticeable pushback from the US Government contending the claims and the media were not in dispute over the claim. If a number of sources had responded more sceptically, stating the source was unable to be verified, then I'd say editors should err against using the claim. I think the key difficulty is that re-reporting is always unpredictable. The Sky journalist may have verified the claim with a source who they were unable to cite (for whatever reason). On the other hand, they may not have even bothered to check it with their own sources and instead may have simply copy-pasted the claim. Sadly we are unable to know the extent to which the journalist has vetted the claim, but I think going with an estimation of the primary source's utility using WP:DEPSOURCES and weighing the extent to which other sources have disputed the claim are the best ways to measure its accuracy. Llemiles (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail, although problematic, is not highly unreliable Pretty sure it's more than "problematic" and is literally so unreliable that we can't trust it to tell truth from falsity, that's what "deprecated" means - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If it stood alone as a claim supported by no other outlet, that seems fair. And even if all other sources simply quoted it as the sole source, I think scepticism would be deserved. So I guess that's a general answer for DeFacto's general question. In the particular case here, however, the "original scoop" has been overtaken by events, with a lot of important people making comments that suggest it was true and, as Llemiles mentions, with no US pushback. This lends a huge amount of weight to the likely veracity of the original DM claim, whether the source is "deprecated" by Wikipedia or not. (Yes, it's difficult to know how to read that Sky claim). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

However, before those more recent events, and we couldn't possibly have known they were to transpire, would we have been wrong to report the Mail's assertion, cited to an RS? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Your scepticism was justified. Not sure I see it quite so clearly as a question of "right and wrong". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. does anyone know if the DM is getting any better? Is the number of official complaints to the PCC the only metric Wikipedia employs? Thanks.

@David Gerard: I am not one for defending the DM. However we should acknowledge there are a wide range of sources (from the discredited to the questionable) on the deprecated list. It is not a perfect list and there is no perfect measure on which to say a paper has descended fully into discredited status. We have to be willing to consider if a bad source has got something right from time to time, especially where a second (more credible) outlet has reprinted the information. Some sources should be disregarded quickly, but DM was a controversial deprecation decision and there are pros and cons to it. In this case, we took the context and made the right call based on the balance of the DM source's credibility, the response by other news outlets, and the extraneous material that was out there. The right decision was ultimately made. Llemiles (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

We have a similar issue with the Derek Mackay article. The scoop was by the Scottish Sun, a deprecated source, but we have used as our reliable sources the BBC and a variety of others. However they are only reporting what The Sun is claiming. As such we have done in-line attribution for each claim to make it clear of the level of POV that may be involved and to keep it out of wikipedias voice. Koncorde (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, deprecated means we don't use it by default. If there is robust consensus for an exception, as there might well be in this case, then we can use it. In this case it's unnecessary because we use better sources that have cross-checked and repeated the allegations. The Scottish Sun is not an independent source for the fact of the Scottish Sun having contacted Sturgeon's office, after all (the RS trifecta: reliable, independent and secondary). But a story that is solid investigative journalism and has been verified and repeated elsewhere, should easily achieve consensus as an exception. Guy (help!) 10:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Llemiles, deprecating the Daily Mail is entirely uncontroversial in terms of Wikipedia policy. It was controversial among off-wiki right-wingers, but the history of fabrication is an absolute dealbreaker for us here. It means we have to cross-check every citation before we can use it, and that puts us in the position of arbiters of fact, which is not permitted.

Guy (help!) 10:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

JzGA quick look at Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL shows that the decision was "uncontroversial" in your eyes for your own reasons. That's fine. But I think you do a disservice to a lot of the editors who opposed on perfectly reasonable grounds, not just because they were all "off-wiki right-wingers". I'm not even sure I oppose deprecating the DM but you could have been a bit more reasonable in your presentation of the views held. But I would agree with the sentiments of User:Jayron32, we're not saying the DM should have been cited here, just that the fact it was referred to by more reliable sources gave the information credibility even if the source is not always credible. Llemiles (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• • In replacing DM cites, I'm finding that if the thing is noteworthy then there is always RS coverage of it - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Back to the original issue: The problem with unreliable sources is not that the information they report is always 100% guaranteed wrong, that is if they happen to publish something it doesn't make the information they publish forever verboten on Wikipedia like a sort of poison pill. What we should do is ignore such sources as if they didn't exist. Never cite them, remove any cites to them, etc. If, at a later time, a scrupulously reliable source later publishes the same information, we just cite the reliable source. If the Daily Mail publishes some bit of information first, and something like the Times or the Washington Post or the BBC or something like that later publishes the same information, we don't consider the information tainted because the Daily Mail published it first. We just cite the good source and move on. --Jayron32 13:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• For the most part, agree with Jayron above. When we are talking about a source that is so unreliable we deprecate it, we're still probably often talking about a source this is outright wrong in still a single-digit-percentage of the content they publish. For our purposes, say, "4% incorrect" is still a big deal. That's still almost one-out-of-twenty, and well beyond what we expect from longstanding foundational sources. But it doesn't mean that information they publish can be presumed incorrect; it just means the information they publish can't be presumed correct. Ideally, if this information is republished by a reliable source, they have themselves vetted the information and determined that it is solid enough for them to put their own name on it.

For comparison, we don't normally see this kindof thing with sources that are patently unreliable, in the sense that a majority or nearly all of the content they put out is presumed incorrect. We don't have the BBC or the LAT picking up content from Bob's Flat Earth YouTube Channel and reprinting it. We don't have the NYT or the Guardian quoting "that chain email your grandma sent". GMG^talk 13:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Which one of these sources [29][30] for the following material in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak article? --Ni3Xposite (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Which material? Which stories? buidhe 14:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

In a general sense Straits Times and the South China Morning Post are strong sources. -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Some sources are considered so grossly unreliable that we can't even trust them for basic statements of fact. These are the ones on WP:RSP with a red or grey box.

Wikipedia articles must, per the Verifiability policy, be based on reliable sources. The deprecated sources are prima facie unreliable by broad general consensus, and their continued presence lowers the quality, reliability and trustworthiness of Wikipedia. They need review, and possible removal.

In the overwhelming number of cases I encounter in my own work in this area, they mostly should be removed. But obviously, all of these have to be checked by hand - "deprecated" is not "forbidden", after all.

(Tagging the deprecated sources as bad doesn't seem to achieve much. The bad sources need checking and likely removal.)

As I write this:

• The Sun is down to 24 uses, starting from 8,000 a few months ago. Most of that was me. A few people, each doing a bit a day, can noticeably improve Wikipedia!
• The Daily Mail has 21,768 uses - I've been chewing through these, but help in eating this elephant would be most welcomed. A lot of these are on WP:BLPs, where the Mail, and the claim it's citing, should pretty much always just be removed. Vast numbers of WP:MEDRS-violating Mail cites also.
• News of the World still has 169 uses.
• The Epoch Times is at 842 uses.
• 112 Ukraine has 101 uses of 112.ua and 231 uses of 112.international.
• Crunchbase has 2,682 uses, though that includes "External links" where it's allowed.
• HispanTV.com has just 23 uses.
• NNDB has 1,962 uses.
• Telesur has 198 uses of telesurtv.net and 26 uses of telesurenglish.net.
• ZoomInfo has 1,030 uses.

If you're feeling bored, this sort of thing improves our quality and makes it look less like deprecated sources are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because by policy (WP:V), widely-accepted guidelines (WP:RS) and strong consensus (the deprecation RFCs), they really aren't - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, I have been dealing with ZoomInfo (about 900 links removed) but have been distracted by an IP-hopping troll who thinks Wikipedia is just the place to perpetuate the harassment of the Ukraine whistleblower. I've also been nuking LiveLeak, which is down to legit uses only, and LifeSitenews, whic is all gone. Guy (help!) 10:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, the search for daily mail citation can be broken down a bit by using the DM's own categorization. For example, to find their science articles, use a search like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=50&offset=0&ns0=1&sort=create_timestamp_desc&search="dailymail.co.uk%2Fsciencetech"&advancedSearch-current={"fields":{"phrase":"\"dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech\"")) Vexations (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

oh yeah, their categorisation is useful if anyone wants to attack particular areas. There's also dailymail.co.uk/wires/ which turns up almost-completely-substitutable wire service copy, e.g. AFP or AP - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

How reliable would the National Council of Educational Research and Training (India’s biggest educational board) be for the following?

• Political ideology (for example, according to most sources the Indian National Congress is a centre-left party but NCERT says it’s centrist as per http://ncert.nic.in/textbook/textbook.htm?jess4=6-8 or 13 digit ISBN 978-8174507112) (Chapter 8))
• History (for example, its book claims that because of M R Jayakar’s opposition to some decision, Pakistan’s creation was inevitable as per http://ncert.nic.in/textbook/textbook.htm?jess3=0-5 or ISBN 978-8174507075 (Chapter 2))

RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

NCERT textbooks vary wildly in their reliability. Because they're a national agency with a fair degree of clout, they have obtained the services of good scholars on occasion, who have produced excellent textbooks; they have also been the target of efforts by various governments to skew the ideological framework within them, and have therefore produced a fair amount of crap, too. I would strongly recommend using scholarly material over an NCERT textbook where available, for this reason. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Generally, not. Tertiary but not secondary textbooks (I'm not sure which this is) are usually RS but in these cases better sources exist. Should not be used in preference to better sources, such as academic research. buidhe 16:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Growing up reading NCERT textbooks, I would say they are geared specifically towards primary/secondary school students. The contents are somewhat simplified for school level and usually not too detailed. The books are generally good for teaching and as a first resource for learning about a topic. It may not be useful for Wikipedia though for the reasons Vanamonde93 explained above. There has been cases where the contents has been changed due to the influence of the ruling government. I would not recommend citing them on Wikipedia.-DreamLinker (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Article: Calvin Cheng

Source: http://redwiretimes.com/cow-beh-cow-bu/former-nmp-calvin-cheng-accused-role-price-fixing-scandal/

Question: Is this source, labeled as "submitted by A.S.E.", acceptable on the BLP, Calvin Cheng, to support a contentious claim? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

An unbylined story, no not for BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a bit of background, there is a 10 year old history of conflict of interest editing on this article. COI editors have constantly POV pushed to whitewash the article. The particular claim supported by the secondary source can be verified from the primary sources. The material here is supported by another secondary sources. As for Redwire Times, it is an alternative news media in Singapore (where "reliable" mainstream media is under state influence and the subject in question is linked to the government). There are very few alternative media and this is one of them. Redwire Times has been quoted and mentioned multiple times such as at [31], [32], [33], [34], so I don't think it is unreliable. There are very few media in Singapore and given Singapore's press freedom, it is somewhat understandable that bylines may be omitted. My suggestion is to verify the facts independently particularly from primary sources just to be accurate.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

To me, it appears like a large amount of acrobatics has been done to keep this negative material in the article. If there are no reliable secondary sources for this, it should be removed. Yes, the subject (through proxies) has a history of objecting to negative material on the article about them. So what? Of course, they are going to complain when we are searching court documents and unreliable sources to add negative material about them. That is exactly what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to avoid editing the article directly and ask on the talk page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

There are no acrobatics, it's just an established fact that got sufficient coverage to be notable. The price fixing incident got publicity in enough secondary sources that a sentence about it should be included. For example, Law360 is a reliable source that provided coverage saying basically the same thing as the redwire source.[35] Based on my memory of the talk page discussions (and my memory is admittedly getting faulty as I age), even the COI editors that have appeared over the years didn't deny that it happened, and (as far as I know) they never advocated wholesale removal of that fact from the article, they just wanted to de-emphasize it.

As far the redwire source itself, the lack of byline is disturbing but not surprising for a non-government-sponsored news service in Singapore. I'd rather we didn't use it if better sources are available. In addition to Law360, I thought the The Straits Times covered this also (I recall seeing some in the past). ~Anachronist (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, if this is true, it should be easy to write material based on this secondary source coverage. Why are we using the court documents as a source? Why not cite the sources you mention? Why use Redwire, at all, since it is labelled as "submitted by A.S.E." (what ever that means)? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: No, saying "it should be easy" is false, due to the small size of Singapore and its tight news restrictions when there are government connections. There is basically one news service: The Straits Times, and other coverage may exist outside Singapore but that is understandably harder to find. For example, there's this one from Straits Times, which has come up before in discussion. While it is a reliable source, I recall it was rejected because it was perceived by editors as being self-serving to Cheng, who was a former government MP. I have no problem with citing it instead of redwire, however.

I note that the line in which redwire is cited has multiple other citations on the same line, including Concurrences, which is unfortunately behind a paywall, although BukitBintang8888 may have access to it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I have access to Concurrences now. It does not support "collusion to evade detection and complaints" which should be removed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Many well known Indian newspapers do not have a byline for most of their stories, in contrast to American newspapers who include bylines even for a small town post. That does not however mean the Indian newspapers are unreliable. It's simply how the media industry works. As someone mentioned for TOI earlier on, sometimes what is reliable or unreliable needs to be decided based on the article itself. If a country ranks low on press freedom, there is a possibility that media organisations could be potentially propaganda outlets or at least be under some editorial restrictions. The Redwire Times seems to be cited as an alternative media in Singapore, although I am unclear whether this alternative media is totally free or still under some government restrictions. It is reasonable to assume that any media outlet might have some pro-government bias, regardless of their claim as free/alternative media. The news article specifically linked in this post seems to be reliable and verifiable though, as the site editor has included their own references. While I haven't verified the actual text, it would be trivial to cross check the references and verify the accuracy of the facts.--03:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Published by Board of Islamic Publications of Jamaat-e-Islami. This domain widely used in Wikimedia projects as reliable source for Jamaat-e-Islami linked articles.

Evidences

• Listed in official website of Jamaat-e-Islami as an important link: https://jamaateislamihind.org/eng/important-links/
• Listed in official website of Jamaat-e-Islami, Telangana as an important link: http://jihtelangana.com/important-links/
• http://www.islamdarshangujarat.org/frmUsefulllinks.aspx
• http://jihcityconference.com/
• https://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2010/june10/ethos.html
• https://www.arabnews.com/news/466830
• http://twocircles.net/2013sep30/radiance_magazine_celebrates_its_golden_jubilee.html

❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 20:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Not independent. I would avoid because it's much, much easier to get a NPOV article working from independent sources. Instead, look for academic studies and books about this religious movement. buidhe 20:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

For Indian Muslim news The Milli Gazette can be considered reliable, in case you are looking for citations. Anything of particular significance in The Milli Gazette is generally reprinted by newspapers like HT, TOI as well. Radiance Weekly is published by Jamaat-e-Islami Hind [36] and can be used carefully for certain information regarding the organisation itself. However, there are a host of better sources available out there.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from ((cite web)), ((cite journal)) and ((doi)).

The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• gobalsecurity.org  
• globalsecurity.org  

Past discussions:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 91 § www.globalsecurity.org
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 112 § globalsecurity.org
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 129 § Globalsecurity.org
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 148 § global security.org
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 196 § GlobalSecurity.org
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 216 § globalsecurity.org
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217 § globalsecurity.org as a source on Philippine Prehistory and Protohistory
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 218 § globalsecurity.org
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2 § Antiwar.com and Globalsecurity.org
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 33 § Encarta, Globalsecurity.org and Onwar.com

GlobalSecurity.org (a think tank) is distinctly Web 1.0 in appearance and several past discussions have come out equivocally. There are over 8,000 source links to the site. I suspect it should be on WP:RSP, and it's not clear to me that it meets RS for some of the contentious statements it is used to support. My view on think tanks these days is that they should be used as primary sources only in their own articles per WP:SELFPUB, and we should not include their opinions elsewhere unless covered in secondary sources. Guy (help!) 11:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable. Typo in the "duses" line. Watching the vimeo in Pike's about page may partly explain site appearance (non-Google-assimilated). The site has lots of info' not found elsewhere, but some is old, and some is re-published from other sources. Looks as reliable as most, or better. Adding: Re: "Think tank" label. While the Wiki article uses that as one of many descriptors, the site does not use that label when describing themselves, nor do any of the "praises" they cite. So I wouldn't overweight that characterization. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC) -- Yae4 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I would check for reliability for Japanese newspaper articles and websites.

In Japanese

• Asahi Shimbun [37]
• Mainichi Shimbun [38]
• Yomiuri Shimbun [39]

In English

• The Japan Times [40]

Reliability for The Japan Times, which is an English-language newspaper in Japan, whenever it is generally reliable, or not. --Ni3Xposite (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• • The Japan Times is a highly reputable newspaper, but like all journalism has to be used case by case with a sense of its limitations as a source. I can't comment directly on the Japanese-language press. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• • Echoing the comment above, the Japan Times is an important international paper. -Darouet (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Andreas Philopater and Darouet: Not that I particularly expect it to be used as a source for such on English Wikipedia (at least not by anyone acting in good faith -- Talk:Mottainai is filled with comments to the contrary), but when it comes to coverage of traditional Japanese cultural topics, with the exception of the "popular" ones that are part of Abe-san's "Cool Japan" tourism push, The Japan Times is no more reliable than one would expect an English-language newspaper outside Japan to be. They have repeated the error that the Man'yōshū is "Japan's oldest poetry anthology" (or some variation on that wording) dozens of times over the last year or so -- weirdly, the English-language edition of the Mainichi actually gets this point exactly right,[41] while Abe-san's website gets it wrong.[42] If I were to speculate on the reason for this, it would be that The Japan Times main readership is Japanese people looking to practice their English (the advertisements agree with this assessment), and when factual accuracy conflicts with this goal (writing an accurate version of the above phrase would typically involve using a word that scholars use when writing about Japanese literature in English, but that doesn't appear in most standard dictionaries of English) they tend to go with what will benefit their readership rather than what is factually accurate. (That content that is clearly aimed at foreigners rather than native Japanese is also clearly aimed at a certain segment of the English-speaking ex-pat community who hardly make any effort to gain a deeper understanding of the country they live in, but that's not really a matter for RSN...)

My opening proviso notwithstanding, our Reiwa article does currently have and entire paragraph about parsing the interpretation of the first character of the classical Chinese-based era name, cited almost exclusively to The Japan Times, without noting that in the context of the text from which some literary scholar (probably Susumu Nakanishi) took them the character obviously means "auspicious", "good", or "the period usually corresponding to early March to early April that was the third month of the traditional Japanese lunar calendar, in which plum blossoms bloom throughout most of the Japanese archipelago but particularly Fukuoka"; ideally a more scholarly source could be found without relying on such news media sources.

Moreover, the way in which The Japan Times has historically been cited in our articles on Korean influence on Japanese culture[43] and Donald Keene[44] is completely unacceptable, but I doubt anyone would disagree with me on that point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: your comment reinforces my suspicion that while the Japan Times may be a useful if sometimes flawed source, you, Hijiri88, are an even better source. I have no idea how someone could have gained so much knowledge in such a short span of time. -Darouet (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hijiri88 So as I said, it has to be used with critical commonsense, like any journalism. If it is being used on articles about cultural or literary history, as you seem to be saying is happening, it can only be used to show contemporary perspectives on those things, not to establish the facts. The same would be true of the New York Times or the Daily Telegraph. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to propose a source which issued by some contributors: Dr Khalid Basalamah Lc, M.A. I think he can be used as good source since he had title and multiple degrees in academic insitution such asIslamic University of Madinah and https://www.unirazak.edu.my/Tun Abdul Razak University in Malaysia in the field of Seerah(Islamic history). his activity even sponsored by legit organizations, such as Islamic academic organization which recognized by Indonesia goverment's law. the organization is Hidayatullah and Dewan Fatwa al Irshad. Dr Khalid himself has official website: https://www.khbofficial.com/ which can be asked & accounted , or asked for the transcripts if used as source. can he used as source? Ahendra (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Ahendra, Generally, having a doctorate from a respected institution and/or being an established academic may make someone an expert per WP:SPS, but it's best to use the same person's published output anyway. buidhe 01:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Buidhe, thanks for your answer. published output huh? one last question then, does that means an active website domain which contain his official public lecture video or its lecture transcript can be used as reference link?. thx before Ahendra (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Clerics/Preachers are not RS for historically related stuff, if anything. You've already been told this, and regarding the public "lecture" videos, you've already been answered by an admin regarding that [45]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It is your subjective opinion that the source ive talked about are solely a 'Clerics/preachers'. since i have include the source have doctorate from respected institution. and i think you clearly does not understand the admin warned that the link reference are directly to youtube, so i changed the link toward his official accessable website domain which contain his published output. Ahendra (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

According to Times Higher Education, the institutions that he studied at are not well ranked. Furthermore, if his expertise is theology, he cannot be used for history. Seerah is from an in-universe Muslim perspective and therefore doesn't meet the empirical standard required of academic history. There are much, much better quality sources available. buidhe 23:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

hm. for first point last time i checked in University rank website the first institution placed 15th place of country rank, while the second institution, Tun Abdul Razak placed 37th. the expertize of the said person is history, which he learned from Tun Abdul Razak. while in the University of Medina he learn Arabic Language faculty. for the second point 'Seerah' here is not practically part of theology or representing Muslim perspective, and the term of 'Seerah' in closed term of modern historical study are referring to 'History', except it is focused to the history in middle east in span of between 6th century until 8th century, not solely representing certain PoV which you said doesnt meet the empirical standard for objective study. so what i am asking is, As per WP:RS ruling, a doctorate of certain field should be accepted, non? Ahendra (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

He has no expertise regarding history - he is a cleric, thus he is unreliable. It has nothing to do with my "subjective opinion", it is a quite simple fact and also very logical. We have actually educated historians for fields like this, such as Kennedy and Bosworth. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The relevant question is not rank within the country, it's international ranking. Some countries have much, much better universities than others. And I agree with what HistoryofIran said. buidhe 17:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Basically because of this: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Fake_case_ReportWalidou47 (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• John McAfee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think I'm on solid ground here in rejecting the Washington Examiner as the sole source for this section in the article on McAfee:

On January 29, 2020, McAfee filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission designating his intent to run for US president on the Libertarian Party (United States) ticket.^[1] McAfee’s presidential run is complicated as he says he is hiding from U.S. federal authorities for allegedly committing "criminal acts against the U.S. government" with cryptocurrencies.^[2]

This is a WP:BLP after all. Guy (help!) 16:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Try here and here for a few non-shitty sources on the issue. There's probably more. --Jayron32 18:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  This is his official campaign website. Much of that would probably qualify for WP:ABOUTSELF stuff. --Jayron32 18:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  McAfee makes his living these days from self-aggrandising nonsense, often getting it run in low-quality publications - so be very careful with the self-sourcing on this article, it needs to work to tight sourcing of a solid RS per noted incident - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is self-promotional nonsense that McAfee got into the Washington Examiner, to help him with marketing cryptocurrency altcoins (a trade he's bragged about) - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• This can be safely included with Jayron32's sources. We probably should append something like "McAfee has stated that his run was mostly intended for promoting his ideas, particularly on cryptocurrency and taxation." feminist (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this Psychology Today article reliable as a source on the Internalized sexism article? My view is that it is reliable in this context, as a piece written by a subject-matter expert, thus comparable in reliability to The Conversation (RSP entry). The piece was written by a retired professor of psychology at Cornell, who has written multiple books on the subject of sexuality. The source was removed in Special:Diff/940950768 by Sangdeboeuf, who stated that "Psychology Today blogs are WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources – not generally reliable for factual claims". A previous RSN discussion received varying responses, with some stating that it can be used for facts, and some saying that it should be avoided for scientific claims. The article involved is more of a sociological subject than scientific, and the claim I inserted into the article is unlikely to be controversial, as it merely documents usage of a term. feminist (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It isn't an "article", but a blog posting. I'm not sure about Ritch Savin-Williams's subject-matter expertise here; sexuality and sexual identity are not the same as sexism and gender roles. And sociology is a scientific discipline, separate from psychology. Anyway, there are better sources in the article for the use of the term in question. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

If the Psychology Today source is to be re-added to the article, it will be in addition to the current sources, and I don't see how additional coverage would hurt. feminist (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As I stated, I question the reliability of the source. "Additional coverage" still has to meet the usual standards for RSes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-australian-dream-the-conversation-australia-needs-to-have  

I tried using this film review at (host name) /article/review-the-australian-dream-the-conversation-australia-needs-to-have as a source for the relevant film, but I got the blacklist message. I looked on the local and global pages and searched for "switch" but found nothing. Can someone please advise why this site is blacklisted, and/or whether I can use this film review as a source? (All film reviews, after all, are just someone's opinion!) I'm editing The Australian Dream (2019 film), and was trying to save this text: "with the latter, like several other reviewers, considering its place next to The Final Quarter, another documentary on the same topic."Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

maketheswitch.com.au was blacklisted in January 2019 after being added as spam links to mulitple article leads [46]. You would need to request the link to be whitelisted at [MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]. - Bilby (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink, is there really no other source for this link? Guy (help!) 09:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bilby and Guy. Actually, it's nothing that the article cannot do without – I just wondered why it would have been blacklisted, and why I couldn't find it on what I thought was a list of blacklisted sites, but perhaps I was in the wrong place. Thanks for the update - fair enough to block them if it was them spamming articles before. It's a shame to lose a whole site of film reviews, but c'est la vie. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com  

I have seen rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com used to source articles on association football (soccer) in Canada, primarily in the Toronto area. Some articles, such as Toronto Croatia and Serbian White Eagles FC, rely heavily on this site and would like to know whether it can be used as a RS as there is no oversight, editorial policy, or anything one would expect from a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's definitely not a reliable source in any sense whatsoever. It's one man's personal website compiling primary source soccer schedules, not a media outlet — we should probably (a) blacklist it, and (b) get it removed from any articles that are using it — but the latter would be a big job, because there seem to be a few hundred of them and even the one article I did start to try to strip it from myself, Canadian Soccer League, seems to cite it around 50 separate times. And when I tried to tag that article for ((Unreliable sources)), further, the guy who's been adding that source started revert-warring me over it on the grounds that "Rocket Robin" has been "recognized by the league for his contributions and works" — but that's not the definition of a reliable source either. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that it should be blacklisted. That way 1) if an article with the ref is modified, the references would have to be removed and before it could be saved, and 2) anyone wanting to edit war to restore it would be unable to. After a few months in this state, we could then remove the remainder of the entries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Please participate in Talk:Tucker Carlson#RFC on MMfA white supremacy timeline where the reliability of a Media Matters for America primary source source list of 192 statements by Tucker Carlson since 2004, and a Salon interview with its author, along with the quality of the list itself, have been called into question with both sides strongly opposed, with accusations of a lack of good faith and misleading partisan bias. EllenCT (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The author of the article "The Vlach law and its comparison to the privileges of Hungarian brigands" [47] (in Croatian) is hr:Ladislav Heka. He is not a historian (he is a lawyer), but, instead, he "is an active member of the Croatian community". User Mikola22 widely uses this article to prove, for example, that "In the 15th century after the fall of the Bulgarian Empire under the Sultan's rule a large part of the Vlachs from that area arrived to area between Drava and Sava (Slavonia of that time)." I believe that this article can only be used to clarify the legal details, and not for links to the history of the region.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Cherry-picking in the Balkan history area is not surprising... However, you should provide higher quality source disputing such claim, only then limited use of the above source may be warranted (in theory, such serious errors may render the entire source/author unreliable). Pavlor (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

About this source we already discussed and there was no complaints or claims that it is not RS. Heka writes scientific work from the Hungarian point of view because he cites a lot of Hungarian authors, which is logical because he lives in Hungary. Regarding this quote "In the 15th century after the fall of the Bulgarian Empire under the Sultan's rule a large part of the Vlachs from that area arrived to area between Drava and Sava (Slavonia of that time)" I don't know what should be problem here? PhD Ladislav Heka, "Croatian-Hungarian settlement in the light of historical figures" book from 2019.^[1] This is his work to year 2010.^[2] since then 10 years have passed, so data about his work in 2020 would probably be much longer. Otherwise he is specializes in the history of Bunjevci (Croats) and he wrote a book about them "on the history of Szeged and Subotica Dalmatians-Bunjevci" Review of this book: PhD Robert Skenderovic from the Croatian Institute of History: ""In the introductory chapter, the author explains the appearance of Dalmatians in the Danube region and refers to their importance for the histories of the cities of Szeged and Subotica, which he elaborates on later in the main chapters.., The author also seeks to determine the directions and time of migration from Dalmatia. He pays special attention to the relations of Dalmatian and Bunjevci identity" Prof. Vrbosić assessed "that the latest book by Dr. Sc. Ladislava Heke represents a significant contribution to the study of the history of Croatian migration flows. Namely, before the Ottoman conquest of the Ottomans, the Croatian population settled in the territory of present-day Romania, Hungary, Austria, Slovakia and Italy, but Subotica and its surroundings (Backa) managed to preserve in their mosaic also their Croatian national identity". Final part of the book review and presentation "based on the above, it is clear that the publication of this work by Dr. Sc. Ladislave Heke reliably presents the comparative history of the local Croatian population in Szeged and Subotica"^[3]Mikola22 (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Pavlor Which Cherry-picking? Is there any Bulgaria in the Balkans? Whether and Albanians, Vlachs, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Greeks etc also flee from the Turks or they not flee? Where they disappeared? Mikola22 (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote above, source you provided can be disputed only with the help of higher quality source. Until then, this information is reliably sourced. Pavlor (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pavlor: Not sure I can agree with you. Perhaps this opinion is so marginal that no one disputes it? On the other hand, if this source is reliable and the author is respected, then his opinion should be given, even if it contradicts another respected source. So my question is the same: is this article really a reliable source? So far it seems to me that it is written by an amateur Croatian activist.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

There are several layers of reliability: 1) What is the journal in question (publisher, reviews?); 2) Is the work of this author accepted outside of the Croatia or considered fringe? (again reviews in mainstream scholarly journals would help) 3) What mainstream historians outside of Croatia think about the topic in question (again, if this POV is mainstream, or fringe). Renowned expert in historic law writing in local high quality history journal would be good enough for Wikipedia, no-name lawyer publishing in no-name "journal" of his friends certainly not. Pavlor (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

1. The journal is an open-access journal "Podravina". As I see, it has a SJR=0.112; it takes 126th place from 172 Croatian magazines [48]. Doesn't seem very authoritative.
2. As I see in Google Scholar, there is no much citation on his works: author:ladislav heka
3. That is the problem. This is the first time I hear that people from Bulgaria settled in large numbers in Slavonia. It is generally believed that after the devastation there were German colonists and "Serb migrants from the Military Border or the Ottoman lands." [49].--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• PODRAVINA in secondary journals1. SCOPUS, Bibliographic databases 2. ABSTRACTS JOURNAL, All-russian institute of scientific and tehnical information, Moscow 3. HISTORICAL ABSTRACTS AND AMERICA, History & Life, EBSCO, Santa Barbara, California, USA 4. THE HISTORY JOURNALES GUIDE, Deutschland 5. List of Scientific Journals of the Ministry of Science and Education, "Podravina" is classified with mark A-1.
• More important citation of his work in other books etc to the year 2010 ^[4]
• This is the first time I hear that people from Bulgaria settled in large numbers in Slavonia. In the 15th century after the fall of the Bulgarian Empire under the Sultan's rule a large part of the Vlachs from that area arrived to area between Drava and Sava (Slavonia of that time), Bulgarian Empire at that time has a wider meaning in area. "Serb migrants from the Military Border or the Ottoman lands." Croatian academician Mirko Marković, in a 600-page book about Slavonia "Eastern Slavonia, Vlach population(16th and 17th century) needs well distinguished from ethnic Serbs who come here in the late 17th and early 18th century as fugitives from southern Serbia(from the Turks) Serbian academician Sima Ćirković in the book "Serbs", " On the basis of documents from 13th to the 15th century it is evident that Vlachs (descendants of indigenous peoples) Serbs considered as "others" i.e. different from themselves".Mikola22 (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Please, don´t post walls of references, three best citations suffice, nobody will check and verify 40+ sources (such posts are usually ignored). Pavlor (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pavlor: I wanted to make it easier for editor Nicoljaus because now he has a more options to find some irregularities in the citation of Heka works. It was in good faith. Mikola22 (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• As I see it, Podravina looks like a regional journal focused on local topics. Although some articles/papers are published in other languages, most of this journal is in Croatian language (it is obvious it is mainly for Croatian readers). There is an editorial board with participation of foreign scholars. In my point of view, this journal looks like a reliable source. However, exceptional statements need exceptional sourcing and local journal is not such kind of source. Nicoljaus, could you please provide high quality source(s) showing mainsteam view on the topic in dispute? Pavlor (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Pavlor: could you please provide high quality source(s) showing mainsteam view on the topic in dispute? -- Well, for example: "Ottoman conquest of Serbia, completed in 1459, prompted great migra­tions, but the decisive Serbian migratory current to the north of the Danube came after the Habsburg reconquest of Hungary at the turn of the seventeenth century. Habsburg generals penetrated deep into the Ottoman Balkans, rous­ing the Christian subject peoples to uprising. But with the prospect of libera­tion deferred, the insurgents and their families drew back before Ottoman reprisals. Serbian homesteads in the Sandzak of Novi Pazar, Metohia, and Kosovo, which the subsequent generations of Serbs named Old Serbia, as well as in northern Macedonia and Serbia proper, were literally uprooted, as the Serbs (along with some Christian Macedonians and Albanians) rushed to Hungary, establishing their oases as far north as Szentendre, on the upstream side of the Danube from Buda. The greatest Serb concentrations were in southern Hungary, in the districts of Baranja, Васка, and the Banat of Temesvar, and in eastern Slavonia. Srijemski Karlovci in the Slavonian Military Frontier became the see of Serbian Orthodox metropolitans." The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics by Ivo Banac. But the assumption that it was not the Serbs who moved to Slavonia, but some “Vlachs” from Bulgaria I met for the first time. I looked now for the pair "Bulgaria-Slavonia" and did not find anything.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. I think there is general question of identification of Vlachs mentioned in primary sources (this topic seems to be nearly as popular as Fox news here on RSN...), which can´t be resolved by a mere local journal. So, better source needed for such a contentious claim about history of the Balkans. Pavlor (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thus, from the second half of the fifteenth century (i.e. upon the Ottoman conquest of the western Balkans) the Ottoman state treated the Vlachs in Serbia,Bosnia and Hercegovina and parts of northwestern Bulgaria as a special social group that performed specific military duties and enjoyed a number of fiscal privileges as compared to the regular agricultural subject population^[5] H. Gandev, who produced an influential study of the demographic situation of the Bulgarian people in the fifteenth century. Gandev estimates that 2608 Bulgarian villages disappeared in the course of the century. the Bulgarian rural population decreased by a total of 112,144 households (or approximately 560,000 people) as a result of the Ottoman conquest. An additional 24,000 urban households (or 120,000 people) are estimated by him as having been killed, enslaved, deported, forced to migrate or given no choice but to convert to Islam, so that the total population decline of the Bulgarian people in the fifteenth century amounts to the figure 680,000.^[6] Although the second Bulgarian Empire,like other medieval states, was not a nation-state, there are indications that some Bulgarian tsars led the Slavisation actions among the Vlachs on purpose. It seems that the Bulgarian state gave the Vlachs good conditions for the development not only within their traditional structures. Most likely the Wallachian Plain was also a part of Bulgaria for some period of time However, it is important to mention that military border created in the 15th–19th century by Hungarians, Habsburgs, Venetians and Turks contributed greatly to the strengthening of the Vlach-Slavic ethnic relations. “Vlachs” of military borderlands were of various ethnic backgrounds, many of them were one hundred percent Slavs, but on the other hand, Vlach highlanders were settled there next to the Serbian, Croatian and Bulgarian peasants. Slavisation of a considerable part of the Vlachs and their evolution towards Bulgarian, Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, Bosnian and Ruthenian nationality.^[7] Mikola22 (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Ilona Czamańska is much better author for our purposes, but that is not topic of this thread (reliability of Ladislav Heka). It is clear this discussion has single outcome: ff there is a better source, use it instead of Ladislav Heka. Pavlor (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

First, we need to see high quality source(s) showing mainsteam view. It means concrete historians, books, years, and claims for the migration of someone to Slavonia during the 14th, 15th century. When the editor Nicoljaus collect all that informations and presents them here then we can go further into discussion. Otherwise the journal Podravina is A1 journal meaning it can be used by state institutions. Each article in journal Podravina must have at least two positive review. This means that paper of Heka has a minimum of two positive reviews. We are waiting for editor Nicoljaus.Mikola22 (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No, you will not get carte-blanche for use of low-profile regional journal in in an article concerning ethno-nationalistic minefield like the history of the Balkans. Use high quality sources preferably from outside of the Balkans, this applies to both of you (Mikola22 and Nicoljaus). Pavlor (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Use high quality sources preferably from outside of the Balkans As far as migration is concerned I don't know which sources are showing mainsteam view. As for Croatia area we have very little data about Vlach migration. There are various assumptions. As for Slavonia for now, there would be migration of Vlachs from Bosnia, later towards eastern Slavonia, Vojvodina etc (17-18th century) Rascians (Serbs) are coming(larger groups). This is one mainsteam view: "Orthodox Slavs and Vlachs fled from the Ottomans into Dalmatia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, or farther northward across the Danube. They were strategically resettled in the area of the military frontier. Many people retreated to the mountains of Albania, Greece, and Montenegro, where, as migratory shepherds, they remained largely untouched by Ottoman rule. Greeks from the Peloponnese, Cyprus, and Crete moved to new homes in Venetian territory, southern Italy, central Europe, southern Russia, and Ukraine. Venice, Vienna, and Odessa became new hubs in the network of the Greek diaspora that spread across Europe in this era " ^[8] For Slavonia and the 15th century I don't know much mainsteam views, I have to wait Nicoljaus to see what it's all about.Mikola22 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Ilona Czamańska said: Starting from the 14th century the term “Vlach” began to lose its ethnical meaning in favour of a societal meaning in the areas of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In these areas the Vlachs were strongly mixed with the Slavic population and the name “Vlach” was frequently used interchangeably with the term “Slav” [...] Thus, Vlachs were integrated with Serbs very quickly, especially that the religious affiliation was the main identifier. The persons who belonged to the Serbian Orthodox Church were called by the name of Serbs, not only in the lands which were traditionally Serbian, also in Bosnia.^[9] - Here is what they explained to Mikola dozens of times, but he does not see this even in those sources that he himself cites.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

And all the sources cited say nothing about the relocation of the Bulgarian "Vlachs" to Slavonia. Usual pointless spam in order to mask the lack of arguments and make the discussion unreadable.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thus, Vlachs were integrated with Serbs very quickly, especially that the religious affiliation was the main identifier. The persons who belonged to the Serbian Orthodox Church were called by the name of Serbs, not only in the lands which were traditionally Serbian, also in Bosnia...The majority of Serbs from the Republika Srpska of modern Bosnia is of Vlach origin, as well as the majority of the population from Bosnia and Herzegovina in general. Yes, it is (Serbisation) but i dont know what it has to do with Vlachs and with a claim of Heka? We need information about migration of someone to Slavonia ie quality source(s) showing mainsteam view.Mikola22 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's not RS. He is neither a historian or respectable scholar on Vlach issues. A ton of alleged references (adding a lot of text as if it would improve the viewpoint) is bordering with spam. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• My opinion, after looking at this description is that this probablys meets the definition of a reliable source. However, while this is a scholarly publication, it is a local regional publication with a possible point of view. I don't think the question in this thread is so much reliability, but rather the amount of weight to assign to claims and intrepertations in this source which in my opinion would be low in relation to a publication in an international journal.--Eostrix (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Therefore we do not know Hungarian historiography and we do not have their books, historical sources and informations. This article is RS and there is nothing to talk about that. As for his claim, we must first see a concrete high quality source(s) showing mainsteam view for migration to Hungary and Slavonia in 14 and 15th century, from where and who's coming. This means concrete data from concrete reliable sources. When we have this in front of us then we can make a comparison and then we can draw a conclusion.Mikola22 (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• lostarmour.info  

I don't read Russian so can't absolutely confirm it but this looks like basically a blog or forum. The About page is not helpful. Guy (help!) 12:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

May be this will help: "Relying upon volunteers and crowdsourced comments, Lostarmour meticulously records the specific military equipment units and weapons that have been destroyed or captured from both the Ukrainian and separatist sides. The team that works on the photo and video database currently includes 10 people, and a few dozen other volunteers contribute edits in the comments under relevant sections. Every single entry is backed up with photos or videos, but there are no Russian flags to be found in the lists, though there are plenty from the DNR and LNR." an so on: [50]. I would say they are pro-Russians, but they have some reputation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nicoljaus, that sounds very much like a non-RS to me. And the use of DNR and LNR rather underscores it. Guy (help!) 18:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This is just a quote from the Global Voices site. It is sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation, as I see.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of an issue on Middle School Moguls regarding if this is a reliable source or not. I've brought up WP:NOTRS and WP:SELFPUBLISH, but have most recently been told, "The account is verifiably hers, a co-creator talking about the future of the show falls within self-pub guidelines"

I'm really not quite sure I can agree with that statement that it is "verifiably" her official account. Often (such as in WP:SELFPUBLISH) it is said that unverified social media accounts are not a reliable source. There doesn't seem to be much here that verifies this is the co-creator's official account. The website linked doesn't even contain any links to this social media account whatsoever- which I'd think would be able to verify this. However, the contact page only lists an email and nothing else.

Seems to also be a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL with the, "We are doing everything we can to make more episodes happen!"- basically reads to me as a 'we're trying, but it may or may not happen'. Worth also pointing out some other examples of a similar situation:

1. Knight Squad - see discussion here

2. Henry Danger - Instagrams such as Mike Caron's and Chris Nowak's are not used

3. SpongeBob SquarePants/Kamp Koral - see discussion here

In discussion #3, it is stated that a secondary source should be used in conjunction to verify an unverified social media account- such as a news article using it. Doing a quick Google search, I can't even find a single article using the Twitter in question in the first place.

Any help/response is appreciated, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Magitroopa, why would we include speculation regardless of the source? WP:CRYSTAL. We're an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. Guy (help!) 20:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A few months ago there was a lot of conversations on Wikipedia about Quackwatch being a self-published source in regard to Barrett's articles at least. I didn't agree with that, but apparently there was a weak consensus and it was ruled as an SPS on living biographies. Interestingly, even after this was ruled users have no idea what is going on because there is talk that the source can still be used for claims but not about the person. Right?? Makes no sense! You can hardly separate the claim and claimant for many of these quacks... Not even going to get my head around that. But off-site the woo-meisters have declared this a great victory. I personally do not like the way any of this has been handled, but I will not go on about that! We can forget all that though and move on.

My question for this board is why Quackwatch was singled out but other skeptic sources remain that are similar in outlook. Quackwatch has been removed from living biographies but Skeptic's Dictionary and Skeptoid have remained.

Bilby has started removing a few Skeptic's Dictionary links on articles I noticed, to be fair I did raise this first with this user. The Skeptic's Dictionary is a website based on the book and including other material from Robert Todd Carroll who died in 2016. The Skeptoid podcast is hosted by Brian Dunning, the website owner.

So are the Skeptic's Dictionary and Skeptoid also SPS? Are they also going to be removed from living biographies? The whole situation is a mess. Nobody knows really what is going on. Let's discuss this and see what happens here. Let me know what you all think. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about this. You came to my talk page and wrote:

"What do you think about the Skeptic's Dictionary website that is used on living biographies? the website was maintained and owned by Robert Todd Carroll and the Skeptoid website is maintained by Brian Dunning. So by your logic shouldn't those sources be removed from many articles, because they are self-published as well?"

If you believed at the time that these are self-published sources, are you now saying that you believe that they are not?

As to Quackwatch being singled out - it wasn't, it was simply the one I was tackling at the time. Given that were suggested that Skeptic's Dictionary should also be removed, I started looking into it once I was finished with Quackwatch, per your suggestion. - Bilby (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe Quackwatch has been singled out, that is why I have mentioned these other websites. Quackwatch is more reliable than these other two websites because it has multiple academics and scientists writing for it, but they are all reliable in their content. These other two website are SPS, I think you know that. Look at the Skeptoid, Dunning hosts it, he writes for the website and he owns it. But just because a source is SPS does not mean it cannot be used, yes most of the time they shouldn't. "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable on Wikipedia, though there are exceptions". These are clearly the exception because they are in accord with the scientific consensus and WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE. They are scientifically accurate sources. "It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

They are being replaced only where they violate WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". I have no particular concern in regards to their use elsewhere. Quackwatch was treated the same way - it was only replaced when it violated BLP, but otherwise is fine. - Bilby (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The Skeptic's Dictionary started as a book that was written by Carroll, a college professor of philosophy and published by John Wiley & Sons, a very reputable house. The author later began a website of the same name where he expanded on the book by adding newly written material. In my view, the book is reliable and the website should also be considered reliable (for everything except BLP assertions) according to WP:SPS which says "expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. When sourced to the book there is no problem. When sourced to the website, the only significant problem occurs when it is applied to a BLP. If viable and if it contains the same information, the website can be replaced with the book in BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy, Are these removals from articles about quacks and antivaxers by any chance? Guy (help!) 09:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you would expect the "Skeptics Dictionary" to be used, but yes. This was at Psychologist Guy's suggestion that there was a problem with the sources. [52] - Bilby (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, my question is specifically regarding books published by reputable academic publishers of non-fiction works, such as Harvard University Press, University of Texas Press, Cambridge University Press, etc.

It is specifically about facts about an author such as their life circumstances and academic background. (such as where they were born and lived, where they went to school, where/what they have taught, grants and awards received, etc. I'm not talking about opinions regarding reputation or quality of work.)

1. Would the information in the "About the Author" section of a book generally be considered a reliable source for facts about the author of the book?
2. Would the information about authors of different chapters contained in a book that is edited by another person(s) generally be considered a reliable source about an individual author?
3. When another person writes the Forward or Preface section of a book, would information contained in that section generally be considered a reliable source for information about the main author.

I am also assuming all mentioned would be considered reliable sources within the field they are writing about.

I understand every instance is different but was hoping for a "generally" answer. Sorry if this question as been asked and answered before.   // Timothy :: talk  01:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, good question. I would think #1 is analogous to a self-published source, and okay for basic biographic facts about themselves, but I would want an independent source for awards and such. I'm curious to hear what others' opinions on it are. Schazjmd (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Also if it helps, examples of the authors I am thinking about are historians (mostly alive), such as Robert C. Tucker, Joshua Rubenstein, Jonathan D. Smele, Christopher Read, Lars T. Lih, Vladimir N. Brovkin, Adeeb Khalid.  // Timothy :: talk  01:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• If it's from a respected publisher it's reliable in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, it's usually reliable but not independent. Any exceptional or promotional claim needs another source. Guy (help!) 00:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, biographies of academics often draw on their own claims (see WP:NPROF: "non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details"). This would actually be better than using their university website in my opinion. Indeed non-independent sources present much less of a problem for academics as lying has consequences in terms of academic integrity that don't exist in other fields. buidhe 03:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking the time to answer. This was helpful.
Hope all is well with you.   // Timothy :: talk  00:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/16/18182114/tulsi-gabbard-2020-president-campaign-policies
• used / inserted in Tulsi Gabbard's BLP repeatedly [53] [54] [55] [56] and contains the claim,

• In 2002... she vowed to pass a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.

This claim is factually wrong. No other source corroborates this claim but many sources contradict it. What really happened is that Gabbard campaigned for that constitutional amendment in 1998, which got passed in a referendum in 1998: More than two out of three voters approved a constitutional amendment that gives lawmakers the power to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. [57] In 2002, Gabbard touted her previous campaigning for this amendment: "Working with my father ... to pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, I learned that..." [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]

How can we prevent this factually wrong claim from being repeatedly inserted into articles? AFAIK, blacklisting only works for entire media organizations, so how do we handle certain false claims? Xenagoras (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a question of reliable source. It should be settled on the talk page of the article in accordance with WP:DUE. buidhe 00:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, the talk page discussion failed because the editor repeatedly inserting this claim ignored my explanation.[64] Xenagoras (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This didn't need to come to this noticeboard. Just reword it.

Change

In her campaign for the Hawaii legislature in 2002, she vowed to "pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage."

to

In her campaign for the Hawaii legislature in 2002, Gabbard emphasized her roll in getting a constitution amendment passed that made same-sex marriage illegal in Hawaii. She vowed to "bring that attitude of public service to the legislature."

Problem solved. - MrX 🖋 00:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, should we check for reliability for the South China Morning Post?

Here are these sources below from these articles:

• https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3025670/hong-kong-leader-carrie-lam-set-withdraw-extradition-bill
• https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3050681/coronavirus-hong-kong-confirms-three-news-cases

Links to these articles that connected to SCMP:

• 2019 Hong Kong extradition bill
• 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

--Ni3Xposite (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know why SCMP is not RS. My rules of thumbs for reliable source is if you can find that content on multiple sources then it is RS. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that is a good rule, even Alex Jones says things that are sometimes true, that does not mean he should be an RS. But I would need to see why the South China Morning Post should not be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have always viewed SCMP as RS. Perhaps the OP could be more forthcoming as to their precise concerns? --Pete (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Same. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Like any organization that ultimately has to answer to the Chinese Government, the SCMP should not be treated as RS for anything related to politics. Wikipedia's article South China Morning Post has ample examples supporting this general rule in the case of the SCMP. But as a general matter, this should not even need to be proved case-by-case. The fact that they are ultimately under the power of the Chinese Government is enough.

All of the above said, I would accept anything published prior to the 1997 British handover as reliable. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

SCMP has been bought by Alibaba Group from China, where press freedom is lacking. It has a long history as a newspaper but the recent editions/editorials may not necessarily be free of government bias. In case of contentious content about Hong Kong, it is recommended to also use alternative sources like HKFP.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we can treat the South China Morning Post as reliable. Burrobert (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Usable in most situations, but exercise caution with political reporting and contentious topics following their Alibaba takeover. I would say the same for other publications controlled by pro-regime entities, such as Hürriyet or Southern Metropolis Daily. feminist (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)