[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 442

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 435 ← Archive 440 Archive 441 Archive 442 Archive 443

Times of India running AI-generated articles?

This article "Billionaire CEO surprises UMass Dartmouth graduates with cash gifts" (archived: [1]) likely wasn't written by their staff, given that Charlie Munger died last year and the referenced Insider report[2] doesn't mention him. It grossly mistakes Granite Telecommunications CEO Robert Hale Jr with late Berkshire Hathaway vice-chairman Charlie Munger. AI hallucination, I guess? Ptrnext (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  • sigh* Goddammit, this sort of BS is going to make the internet such a hellhole. More than it already is. Are we going to just have to make a "reliable only before 2024" note for most news media at some point? SilverserenC 04:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Holy shit this again. We might need to make a [AI generated source] tag.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Or something.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • It's easy to foresee a future where watchdog organizations rate sources based on disclosed and undisclosed AI use. Where sources differentiate by being "AI Free" (for a price). It's always been, the lies are free and the truth is behind a paywall. -- GreenC 04:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The Times of India is generally unreliable anyway, this just makes it worse (WP:TOI). Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not surprised if they're using AI to write articles. However, the entry at RSP indicates the general consensus is that they aren't quite generally unreliable. --Hipal (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    I recently processed it through WaybackMedic (a link maintainer). We have many links and domains: timesofindia.com, timesofindia.indiatimes.com, m.timesofindia.com, economictimes.com, m.economictimes.com. About 13.5k articles with these two publications, Times of India and Economic Times. They have six more publications. -- GreenC 00:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • WP:TOI was already questionable at best, but this sort of blatantly false content means that a formal RfC is probably in order since WP:TOI encompasses discussions no later than 2022. - Amigao (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced this story is AI, rather intentional. Why they did this, probably the end result of how they obtain news stories, editorial decisions and their target market ie. monetary issues, not an infowar campaign. It's clearly designed to appeal to two readers: the wiser market who know who Munger is; and the dumber market who dream of a rich man giving them $1,000. They changed the name to someone famous because it is more relatable. They invented fake quotes from students to make the amount seem life changing, really only a token gift.
    My experience with Indian journalism in general is that (sometimes) a good story is better than the truth, particularly when that story advances the larger aim of keeping everyone dumb and happy, maintaining social harmony. I don't think we can eliminate all Indian news sources and the correct action is to accept them but with more caution and verification. Note that Times of India is the largest English-language circulation in the world, it's not like cutting off The Daily Mail or something, it would be huge and given this is the primary news outlet of India potentially very adverse. -- GreenC 14:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    This isn't editorializing or misleading framing, it's outright fabrication. The only way to verify sources that have a reputation for this is to find a corroborating source, and at that point it's basically a generally unreliable declaration. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The tech industry uses "AI" as a buzzword to describe any piece of technology people don't understand and WP:RSN uses "AI" as a buzzword to describe any newspaper article that doesn't make sense. I would ask that anyone that believes an unreliable source is "AI-generated" try using a large-language model to replicate the hallucinations. It is much more difficult than you think.
Editors are greatly overestimating the capacity of WP:TOI's staff. They've fabricated content before AI (including for pay) and will do so into the future, though this is much worse than usual. The impact of banning it would be enormous but even so, they're clearly not safe for even basic human-interest stories anymore. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

www.ellaslist.com.au - this appears to be a WP:SOCIALMEDIA-ish website, pretty innocuous , but still used on a few article

Hi all,

URL: https://www.ellaslist.com.au/about-us

Please see:

I can see that Ellaslist and ellaslist.com.au have never been created.

Pretty much De minimis, but flagging it here, as I guess I'm obligated to.

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be self-published and has no editorialisation but how is it 'socialmedia-ish'? Traumnovelle (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
"We understand the impact that having strong community and supportive connections can make when you have kids. By making discovery easier at a hyper-local level, we help families make stronger connections in their local 'villages' which help break social barriers and parenthood isolation| https://www.ellaslist.com.au/about-us]
OK, I guess I should have been more clear here.: 'socialmedia-ish'" Just a mums and dads website, analogous to any number of Facebook groups.
Does this address your concerns? Please let me know if not
--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I guess, I would just say it's just one of those random self-published websites by a non-expert littered over the internet that people somehow think are acceptable to cite when they clearly don't meet WP:V. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-06-08/Special report

This will be of interest to many here: RetractionBot is back alive. The userpage will have many relevant categories (all the unintentional citations categories especially need human review).

If you notice a Cochrane Review that's 'retracted', ignore those notices for now (see story's comments for why exactly).

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Broward County Convention Center sources

Dear White Staffers

Could some editors go take a look at the row going on there and on the talk page? Feels like this could use some extra eyes... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

can you provide some info? the talk space's latest thing is from two months ago. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The South African

(Restored from unanswered archived): I have a question about The South African as a reliable source. I came across this article and it seems they have directly copied from our Des van Jaarsveldt page. I remember last time I came across this, it resulted in an RFC that led to depreciation (WP:ROYALCENTRAL). So I'm fulfilling WP:RFCBEFORE and asking here if we should consider it a RS if its hosting plagiarised content? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Heads up re Washington Post

Major changes in store for WaPost - current EIC is departing and being replaced by an editor from the WSJ through the end of the year, and then to a new EIC that is also going to oversee a division dedicated to more on-the-spot reporting including use of video and AI supported stories.
No immediate red flags, but one to keep on eye on as these transitions occur. — Masem (t) 03:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, worth keeping an eye on.
Would publishing "AI supported stories" affect your assessment of a source's reliability, or would your assessment remain unaffected unless the AI supported stories were of poor quality? Pecopteris (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
My main issue with "AI supported" stories is whether that just means they used AI to write the structure of the article, but all the facts and quotes in it were still real and verified by the editors before and after or...if they just gave an AI some prompts and had it write an article wholesale with minimal checking. Those are two very different scenarios. SilverserenC 03:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay seriously can someone make a [AI generated source] tag or something.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Because I’m of the view AI generated sources aren’t very good.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
As pointed out by Silverseren above, if by "AI generated stories" they mean that they use AI to craft a struture but a human editor validates facts and edits to be readable, that's not a problem. If they just publish what ChatGPL spits out without validation or editing care, that's an issue. Its impossible to tell from this change what WaPost will actually do, but its worthwhile to watch out for. — Masem (t) 04:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm reminded of Tesla Full Self Driving, where it's OK so long as the driver has their hands on the wheel. What could go wrong? Or tools on Wikipedia where users initiate bots to process 500 articles that make mistakes and users are watching and fixing. What could go wrong? -- GreenC 14:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Most bots do a perfectly fine job if they’re put in charge of something hard to get wrong. They make mistakes, but so do humans. Dronebogus (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Their next editor was announced as Robert Winnett from The Daily Telegraph in the UK. VintageVernacular (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
A report in WaPo itself on this. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Centuries of Selfies

We've having a dispute with @SergeWoodzing on whether Jacob Truedson Demitz' Centuries of Selfies[1] can be considered a reliable source. This topic has been touched on my talk page and at Talk:Magnus Ladulås (warning: these threads are not well focused on this issue).

In my opinion it is not reliable: Demitz is just an amateur, and the book is self-published through Vulkan media. With Demitz, there has also been an incident involving SergeWoodzing where Demitz self-published a paper on an obscure website and it was used as a reference in WP the next day (Talk:Prince Bernadotte). SergeWoodzing has a stated COI with Demitz, for more information about that see this COI Noticeboard thread. In other words, I have concerns that any claims in the book might be designed to influence WP.

SergeWoodzing's argument is that the preface of the book is written by a respectable historian Ulf Sundberg. According to Serge, He obviously wouldn't have done that is he hadn't reviewed the entire book first, and Serge apparently wants us to regard the book as reliable as the books which Sundberg himself has written. The preface can be read in full on my talk page. In my opinion, this preface written to repay a debt a gratitude is not enough to dissolve the above concerns.

Complete list of pages citing Centuries of Selfies and its predecessor Throne of a Thousand years (which is available at archive.org) can be found at Special:WhatLinksHere/Throne of a Thousand Years. Of these, Bridget of Sweden displays a strong POV. I believe all these references were added by SergeWoodzing. Should they be removed or replaced by more reliable sources if they can be verified?

References

  1. ^ Demitz, Jacob Truedson (2020). Centuries of Selfies: Portraits commissioned by Swedish kings and queens. Preface by Ulf Sundberg. Stockholm; New York: Vulkan Förlag. ISBN 978-91-89179-63-9.

Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

What do we know about "Ristesson Ent", the publisher of the 1996 edition? I agree the extensive network of COI edits is troubling. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems to be essentially the same as commons:Southerly Clubs, an organization chaired by Demitz. This has been discussed at Talk:Jacob the Dacian#3rd Opinion. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems clear then that this is a WP:SPS and all the usual warnings apply.
Digging into this a little, I'm a bit gobsmacked at how much content has been pushed into Wikimedia Commons by what appears to be a small family history society. This surely can't be OK. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Dr. Sundberg did not publish the book. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)berg did not publish the book.
Southerly Clubs is not a "small family history society". The organization has a total of over 4,300 members. It has a long-standing OTRS agreement with Commons which has bever been violated. Wikimedia Commons does not allow any images to be "pushed into" it. Are you objecting to their donation and creation of so many relevant images or what gobsmacked you? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
What is the organisation? Who are the members? Does the 4,300 figure include the 3000 "passive" members mentioned here?
What do you mean when you say the organisation has an "OTRS agreement with Commons"? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I am pessimistic about whether anything can be done about that Commons network. There is an occasional useful photo, and Commons does not have very strong content policies, except those related to copyright. What could be done is to limit their spillage into enWP. For example, the number of photos with Lars Jacob (Demitz) posing with a celebrity seems excessive. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Some of the captions at least are undue, like on Dustin Hoffman. I can't see a purpose in calling out a non-notable person just because they happen to be in the same picture as the notable person, especially when a full caption is easily available by clicking through to the source of the image.
I find it dubious that some of the wider collection belongs on Commons: Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere.
Also Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host.
In terms of their usage on Wikipedia here, I don't see a lot of encyclopedic value, but rather a lot of personal aggrandisement for the benefit of family members. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Demitz was paid for his work on Sundberg's dissertation. Any claim that Sundberg wrote the preface to "to repay a debt a gratitude" is insulting to Sundberg as the ethical professional he is.

Sundberg wrote the preface largely due to the book's extensive and reliable bibliography (pp. 182-188) listing and carefully identifying over 350 scholarly works (most owned by Demitz as the list shows), and for the reasons he gives himself.

LIBRIS currently has 7 books by Demitz listed here, LOC has 2 listed here. His books are found in national and regional and state libraries all over the world. So whether or not he is "just an amateur", as nom asserts without much kindness or reliability, can certainly be debated, if necessary. Prefaces to two of his other books (see LIBRIS) are by Kjerstin Dellert and Biörn Riese, Esq. They did not write them "to repay a deby of gratitude" but because the writing in that work is good.

The item on Saint Bridget, as the source citation indicates, was brought up especially by Dala-Demokraten in that newspaper's review.

Sundberg in his preface especially mentions Demitz's beneficial knowledge of English exonyms, which has led to what can be called a campaign by this complaining user to eradicate them all over Wikipedia.

I do not know what Ristesson is or was in 1994 as to relevance here, only that their books have been quite well respected internationally. If I have been guilty of COI input, I am truly sorry. I have intended not to be. Should this matter be judged only on that, now when Wikipedia is allowing people's own websites etc. for sourcing about them?

Behind this noticeboard entry there is personal animosity stemming from my having appealed to nom not to ruin a redirect which once helpfully was for the disambiguation of various Swedish royal women by the same names, so that it, confusing, suddenly went to an article about the name, not about any of the women. Things have been difficult with that user since then and I have asked h cordially to stop being angry. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It was you who brought up this book quite unexpectedly on my talk page. I came here since I did not feel like discussing it with you alone. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ISBN 9789163914805 - Poetry & song lyrics - Publicerad: Stockholm, Sweden : Swenglistic Underground, August 13 2018
  • ISBN 9789163314858 - Grenstam - Publicerad: Stockholm : Famsac Stockholm & Blair, 2020
  • ISBN 9163050307 - Throne of a thousand years - Publicerad: Ludvika ; Ristesson, 1996
  • ISBN 9789198346008 - Prinsarna och prinsessorna Bernadotte i Luxemburgs adel - Publicerad: Stockholm : [Ristesson], 7 juni 2017
  • ISBN 9789198346015 - Princes and princesses Bernadotte in Luxembourg's nobility - Publicerad: Stockholm, Sweden : [Ristesson], June 7 2016
  • ISBN 9789189179639 - Centuries of selfies - Publicerad: Stockholm : Vulkan, 2020
  • ISBN 9789152717073 - Brandgula tillägget 2006 - Publicerad: [Stockholm] : [FamSAC], [2006]
From The Wikimedia Commons page that you created on "Southerly Clubs":

This image comes from the Southerly Clubs of Stockholm, Sweden, a non-profit society which owns image publication rights to the archives of Lars Jacob Prod, Mimical Productions, F.U.S.I.A., Swenglistic Underground (formerly CabarEng), Ristesson Ent and FamSAC.

So 6 of these 7 books appear to be published in association with "FamSAC", "Ristesson", or "Swenglistic Underground", which all come under the umbrella of "Southerly Clubs", of which we are told Demitz is the chairman. The other 1 is published by Vulkan, which Google Translate suggests is a self-publishing company.
A book being available in a library does not mean the book is reliable. A celebrity endorsement does not mean the book is reliable.
WP:SPS applies. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Even if considered self-published, WP:ABOUTSELF applies as to Sundberg's endorsement of Demitz's bibliography and knowledge.
Riese is hardly just a celebrity. Only his prominence as a bank lawyer landed him in svWP. Not all WP bios are on celebritues.
FamSAC and Swenglistic Underground have their own boards. Southerly Clubs administers their emails, phones etc but has no say whatsoever in their publications or other activity.
National libraries etc do not include worthless books in their collections, particularly not the LOC or British Library. They are very picky.
Ulf Sundberg's preface is what should be discussed as a reliable source. Angry and eager as you are to trash him, you even tried to tag him for notability until you realized on your own that that was an error.
Another factual error of yours; I did not create [3] or negotiate it's OTRS.
You are obviously trying to use this forum to promote your own personal agenda, now ignoring Sundberg. Sad! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Please can you take care to be clear who you are responding to. You are talking to two different editors but seem to be mixing us up.
I will respond to the parts that I think were directed at me.
  • ABOUTSELF does not apply to Sundberg's preface because Sundberg didn't publish the book, and it's not about him.
  • Riese is completely irrelevant as his preface was on an entirely different book to the one we are discussing.
Relevant re "just an amateur". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • FamSAC and Swenglistic Underground have their own boards. And yet, this page which you created says Demitz is the Deputy Chairman of FamSAC. So how does he have no say whatsoever in their publications or other activity? Demitz is also listed under Board of Directors & Honorary Members on another Commons page that you created. Hardly independent.
A deputy chairman cannot publish h organization's books on h own. Neither can a chairman. They are not owners, only board members. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • National libraries etc do not include worthless books in their collections, particularly not the LOC or British Library. They are very picky. Legal deposit libraries hold vast collections and being included in those vast collections does not imply reliability.
LOC does not accept deposits of foreign publications. Only donations they consider valuable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Another factual error of yours; I did not create [4] or negotiate it's OTRS. I didn't say you did. I said you created this page (and you did).
So what is an OTRS agreement anyway, and who did negotiate it, and what does it say that should influence our judgement of the reliability of a book that it published? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
You brought up Commons. Commons is irrelevant here. If you want to discuss this at Commons, go there! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
(Aside: please don't interleave comments)
"Just an amateur" is perfectly accurate, and one professor liking the book isn't enough to make the author non-amateur, and isn't enough to undo the self-published nature of the book.
The author is clearly intimately involved in the publishing organisation to a degree that makes the publishing organisation non-independent, and thus the book is still a self-published source.
Whether the LOC values the book or not is independent of whether the book is a reliable source of facts for a history article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
You are trying very hard to tell us that someone is clearly intimately involved in something, as if you knew that for a fact. And you also infer that you have lots and lots of knowledge about these things, these organizations and these people, which we have no actual reason to recognize. A for effort, A+ for ego, F for insight. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
A deep understanding of how Ristesson Ent and the other clubs work and what they do is not required here. Ristesson Ent is not an established publishing house, Demitz has had a position in its board, and it mostly or exclusively publishes books by Demitz. That is enough to establish it as non-independent of Demitz. As for the status of 'amateur', the onus would be on you to show that Demitz is an established subject-matter expert. Self-publishing books is not enough for that.
We might also discuss whether these books can be considered reliable despite being self-published. According to WP:USINGSPS, a reliable source has the following characteristics:
  1. It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ☒N
  2. It is published. checkY
  3. It is appropriate for the material in question, i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.
  4. It is a third-party or independent source. checkY
  5. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as independent editorial oversight or independent peer review processes. ☒N
There is no evidence that the first and the fifth condition would be met. The third one depends on context. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Stop using The Times of Israel as a source for Israel-Palestine conflict news.

The Times of Israel has shown itself to be biased in favor of Israel on multiple occasions, such as this article where they put an Israeli report above internationally recognized reports about Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, and this article where they refer to Sde Teiman detention camp as a "field hospital", and the civilians held there as "October 7 suspects". MountainDew20 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Have they published anything about the Israel-Palestine conflict that has been shown to be false? Pecopteris (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a question of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Opinions and controversial facts sourced to the ToI are unlikely to be due unless balanced with contrasting opinions, attribution is likely necessary in many cases. The use of "field hospital" to describe a detention camp is unlikely to be due at all.
It will have very useful factual information about the Israeli perspective on the conflict, especially the thinking of members of the genocidal regime and its armed forces, but it must be used with care due to its level of bias, the lack of freedom of speech and level of self-censorship within Israel at the current moment.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@MountainDew20 First of all your tone is highly problematic. This is not how we start discussions here. We present questions for discussion. We don't give orders to the entire Wikipedia community. Second, there is nothing problematic with the article about the "famine". It just reports about the position of the Israeli health ministry on the subject. Third, regarding the Sde-Teman facility, the Guardian and CNN also say there is a field-hospital there. Vegan416 (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
They describe it as a field hospital at a detention camp, which is different. The whistleblowers' evidence regards torture at the detention camp as a whole. Saying Sde-Teman is a "field hospital for October 7th suspects", when in fact it is a detention camp for any males captured by the Israeli army in locations they deem likely to hold Hamas/other fighters is worrying. This is a good example of why we must use ToI with care.--Boynamedsue (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The ToI article also describes this facility in the same way "The hospital is near the city of Beersheba in southern Israel. It opened beside a detention center on a military base after the October 7 Hamas attack". And "Israeli human rights groups say the majority of detainees have at some point passed through Sde Teiman, the country’s largest detention center. Doctors there say they have treated many who appeared to be non-combatants". You apparently didn't read the whole article, and judge it based only on the title... Vegan416 (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The wording is bad in the article in several places, the article draws a line between the two facilities that no other source does. Again, I think it is clear that the degree of bias and limitations on free speech in Israel means that we need to be careful with these type of sources. This of course does not mean we can't use it.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I have shown that the Guardian and CNN also draw a line between the facilities. Also it seems that the people who were the sources for this article worked in medical jobs there, so the emphasis on the hospital part seems reasonable. I also disagree completely with your claim that there are significant limitations on the freedom of the Times of Israel. This article actually proves the opposite. Vegan416 (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The fact that they published an article about Sde Teiman and did some journalistic work themselves to investigate the abuses committed by "their" side actually shows that it's a reliable and valuable source. Alaexis¿question? 09:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the better Israeli media in my experience, a little biased but comparatively less so than others. Byline "TOI staff" should be avoided and attribution for controversial material, but otherwise I think its OK. Selfstudier (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

All sources on this are biased, and by that I include the New York Times etc., which the other day attributed to the Israeli government a plan which other sources said substantially met the core demands of the Hamas authority, a plan which Israel promptly rebuffed. Were bias the criterion, then we would be close to having no secondary sources at our disposition. Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Its news reporting is better than most of the Israeli press. Its opinion pages are frequently written by lunatics and should be ignored. Zerotalk 09:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Can you tell us which of the writers featured in the OPs section here today is a lunatic , and why do you think so? Vegan416 (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
ToI blogs are obviously unreliable unless written by an expert. Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Come on Vegan416, you can't be telling people "We don't give orders to the entire Wikipedia community" (which is not really a rule, rather, a popular activity/comedy goldmine), then ask someone to name names, thus potentially violating WP:BLP. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I didn't order him. I asked him. Can't you tell the difference between ordering the entire community to stop using a source, and asking someone a question? Also, obviously Zero did not use the word "lunatic" here as a certified psychiatric diagnosis but rather as his political opinion, which therefore doesn't violate WP:BLP in any way. Vegan416 (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, apparently I can tell the difference between 'order' and 'ask' using the difference in symbols. That's probably why I wrote 'ask' rather than 'order', although I can't be sure. Anyway, I'm not trying to get into an argument with you. I was merely pointing out what looked like a mistake to me. If you are interested in testing WP:BLPTALK, it's probably better to do it yourself. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, I'm not the one who labelled here a whole group of specific people as potentially "lunatics". So whatever concerns you may have regarding WP:BLP should be aimed at Zero and not at me. Vegan416 (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
In addition to Nishidani's point, our policies do not require reliable sources to be unbiased or even neutral. They do require them to be accurate in context of the material they are being used to source/reference. The issue with the TOI isnt one of bias, its that it frequently publishes what amounts to Israeli government line with little-to-no editorial comment or critical evaluation. So when the Israeli government goes into misinformation mode, the TOI reflects this. Its incredibly low-value when compared to most reputable non-Israeli news organisations on the subject of Israel government and state actions, even taking into account bias. Its certainly reliable if you want to know what the Israeli government wants people to think/believe. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a few examples of them uncritically reporting something you would describe as: Israeli government goes into misinformation mode, the TOI reflects this. Its incredibly low-value when compared to most reputable non-Israeli news organisations on the subject of Israel government and state actions, even taking into account bias FortunateSons (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

ToI is generally reliable for good reasons. They do original reporting (though I concur with others that some of their opinion pieces are of mixed quality in text and author), but removing any citation simply because it’s ToI will be highly inappropriate 99% of the time. Bias (which they are significantly less affected by than many others) is not unreliability. FortunateSons (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Boynamedsue, Nishidani, Selfstudier and Alaexis. No source on this contentious topic is perfect; we should be wary of being overreliant on any one source; but bias is not unreliability and this is basically usable with the usual caveats. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Bobfrombrockley here. TOI is generally reliable. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
This may not be obvious to most editors, but the central use-case for TOI and, to a lesser extent, JPost, is as aggregation of Hebrew-language media. Many stories are only available in English via these outlets, and they are usually reliable translators. NOTE: This is to the exclusion of specialized legal, religious, or military subjects. TOI and JPost do not have the expertise to translate these articles correctly (no one with legal, military analysis, or Orthodox-religious higher education on staff) and the result is often seriously distorted.
Although w/r/t religious and technical detail a similar concern attaches to every daily newspaper, I would never prefer TOI for any claim that a monolingual outlet had equal ability to report. For example, I spoke with Jacob Magid last year for a story regarding UN diplomacy. He had badly misunderstood his source, unlike mainstream outlets. There is no reason to use TOI for such a claim.
Anyway, there's a category of such publications for every foreign language, and it does no one any good to restrict our citations to equal-quality foreign-language sources that most editors can't even evaluate. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Imperial College Press and Springer Nature?

1) Hassan, Muhammad Haniff. Civil Disobedience in Islam: A Contemporary Debate. Singapore, Springer Nature Singapore, 2017. P 35. (Author: Muhammad Haniff Hassan is a Research Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His research interests Islamism, wasatiyah, and contemporary Islamic jurisprudence.)
2) Ali, Mohamed Bin. Roots Of Religious Extremism, The: Understanding The Salafi Doctrine Of Al-wala' Wal Bara'. Singapore, Publisher Imperial College Press, Distributor: World Scientific Publishing Company, 2015. P 10. (Author: Research Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.)
  • Please help confirm if above two books can be accepted as WP:RS?
  • Just for record:Another input request at WP:NOR/N is about distinct and different sources hence not WP:FORUMSHOP.

Bookku (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Answered,Draft topic related but not about RSN
Unconnected to the RS question, but after a quick read through the draft I was a bit surprised that it didn't discuss the notion of imitation in terms of disbelief, which I assume might be how this idea got started and mutated over time (with the caveat that I know virtually nothing about this topic). Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Pl. join in to develop the draft, since I always seek active contributions from diverse set of Wikipedians as much possible. That said, it's even to my surprise that, except for couple of good articles, orthodox religious theologies and lived religion is not covered on WP to minimal level in general and about Islamic theology too in particular. Even academia seems to be late in approaching Tashabbuh bi’l-kuffār i.e. imitation of non-Muslims, though now some academic coverage is there and I am trying to cover that. Regarding your particular question true that needs to be covered but our hands are tied to RS using expressly using word Tashabbuh, so far RS seems to cover that more with Al-Wala' wal-Bara' terminology and unfortunately again even the article Al-Wala' wal-Bara' is still a stub. I doubt I would have enough time myself for the article Al-Wala' wal-Bara' too. Bookku (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Have you some good reason for distrusting those sources? Books from those publishers would normally be accepted as reliable sources without question. NadVolum (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Both seem to have editorial oversight so both are RS per wikipedia's definition. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Colombia has an RfC

Colombia has an RfC for studies on genetic ancestry of Colombians. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Emma D'Arcy date of birth

Are these two sources WP:RS for her their date of birth: [5] and [6]? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

With no comment on the DOB, doesn’t D’Arcy use they/them? FortunateSons (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, I have adjusted my question above. Although I think her gender at birth, which presumably also still appears on her birth certificate, is well-known. Or are you suggesting that one or both of those sources are not reliable because they mis-gender her? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
It was just a reference to your edit, not to the sources. Thank you for changing it! FortunateSons (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
You have no opinion on the sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I’m not familiar enough with the person or the specific sources, I could speculate, but last time I tried my hand at WP:DOB, I was in the significant minority.
If I had to say: The List (magazine) and Russh seem fine on reliability (with a very surface-level check), but I would look for a few additional RS or a direct statement (perhaps on social media) by them, just to be on firmer ground regarding widely published.
I would recommend that we wait for a few others to join in, just to be sure. FortunateSons (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Sources from "social media" tend to be dismissed as unreliable, although I have seen birth dates supported by "Happy Birthday" tweets on X. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
You’re right: an Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF use can be helpful as secondary confirmation, in line with WP:DOB, A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it. FortunateSons (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The List say the right things about concern for factual accuracy and so forth, and publish contact details to submit corrections; Russh have a similar policy but I can't find any information about how to submit corrections. The authors of both pieces ([7], [8]) have apparently also published in magazines I would normally consider reliable for this sort of basic celebrity biographical information (one for Vogue, the other for GQ and Vulture). I don't see any particular reason not to consider these reliable sources. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
On the basis of that appraisal, I would be happy to add. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Harold Perkin as an author for refs in Heydar Aliyev

Could Harold Perkin and his The Third Revolution: Professional Elites in the Modern World be considered a reliable source about Heydar Aliyev? The book could be found here, the relevant part on pages 138-139. According to Wikipedia article about Perkin, he is considered a respected scholar, but in a different field. He is not an expert on Azerbaijan or Heydar Aliyev, never published any specialized researches on this topic, and only makes passing mentions of Aliyev in his book. General topic of the book is not Aliyev or Azerbaijan, but "the rise of a global professional society since the Second World War". In the paragraph about Aliyev, Perkin makes completely false statements, such as this:

Quote: Aliev thrust himself to the head of the Azeri People’s Front, and was elected to the Supreme Soviet of the republic in time for independence in 1991.

In reality, Heydar Aliyev never led Popular Front of Azerbaijan, who were in fact his political opponents. Apparently, Perkin mixed Abulfaz Elchibey (whose actual surname was also Aliyev) with Heydar Aliyev, which shows that Perkin had no real knowledge of the subject. Generally, the two paragraphs dedicated to Aliyev read more like yellow press than a serious research, and contain other unrealistic claims.

In my opinion, if a source shows clear lack of knowledge on the subject, and makes false claims, it cannot be considered reliable on that particular subject. In addition, according to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. This I believe is clearly the situation with the Perkin's book. Grandmaster 08:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment. I think Grandmaster should've linked the relevant talk discussion in their post here, no? Otherwise, how editors would know the context of what we've already discussed?
Anyway, please see the discussion about Perkin: Talk:Heydar_Aliyev#Harold_Perkin_falsified_Aliyev's_biography.
Obviously he's a reliable source; being an esteemed historian, his book is also published by established Routledge with a peer-review process. The surname confusion quote in the page 139 that Grandmaster cherry-picked to invalidate Perkin isn't even included in the wiki article of Heydar Aliev. Also the confusion doesn't come from Perkin himself but from The Independent news article that confused the two Aliyevs, so Perkin shouldn’t be blamed for when he was misled by another source.
And as if Perkin's credentials aren't enough that he's a clear WP:RS published by an established publisher with a peer-review process, there is an actual review of Perkin's book too (that Grandmaster omitted mentioning here), praising the book for being well written and an excellent reference for political science and history:
  • “The book is lively and well written. Surely controversial and thus worth reading. As an essay targeted to the public at large, it is a work of culture and finesse. It will make an excellent reference for one of those undergraduate discussions that so usefully open or close a political science, history, or even economics course.” [GIANNI TONIOLO, Duke University, The Journal of Economic History 1998]
And as if this wasn't enough, there is another book which verifies the same things Perkin said (the things that are actually cited in the Heydar Aliev article), like the sex services info which is confirmed in this other book too:
  • "Among these volunteers, there were women, and the organization's property holdings solved the problem of secret rendezvous for them and their men friends. This was perhaps the key sense in which these flats were 'secret'. Using his official position, Geidar Aliev would encourage his 'volunteer' helpers to make love to him. One of them went along with it but then changed her mind and kicked up a fuss. This was after Stalin's death, and the terror of what had been Beria's outfit eased for a while." [The Soviet Mafia by Arkady Vaksberg, page 176]
It should be noted that after I provided the Vaksberg book basically verifying what Perkin said, Grandmaster tried to discredit Vaksberg and his book too with WP:OR commentary [9], but to no avail because WP:OR is not accepted on Wikipedia, and to top this off, there is an actual positive book review for Vaksberg and his work as well, it even praises the Azerbaijani chapter in particular:
  • the most interesting chapter is the one on Aliev and the Azerbaijan mafia. The recent civil disturbances involving the surviving communist leadership, the Aliev mafia and the popular front leadership becomes more comprehensible after Vaksberg's analysis.[10]
Basically after all of this, seemingly having no further replies to my arguments, Grandamster brings the discussion here to this board because apparently Grandmaster wants "third party opinions" [11], even though we already had a third party in the talk discussion (Hipal) who also disagreed with Grandmaster's personal views [12]. Vanezi (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot to link the discussion at talk of the article, apologies for that. Otherwise, Perkin actually took all the content about Aliyev from Vaksberg, which Perkin himself acknowledged, but due to not being familiar with the subject Perkin mixed up the facts. And as I wrote above, Perkin made only a passing mention of Aliyev in 2 paragraphs of the book that is generally dedicated to a different subject. Grandmaster 15:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Heydar Aliyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Over at the article talk page, you were asked to provide sources. Your not doing so here makes it seem that this is a personal issue based upon OR. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Do you need a source that Heydar Aliyev did not lead Popular Front? We have articles about Popular Front of Azerbaijan and Abulfaz Elchibey, and you were provided a few sources at talk. If that's not enough, here's more.
Audrey L. Altstadt. Frustrated Democracy in Post-Soviet Azerbaijan. Columbia University Press, 2017. Quote:
The Popular Front was formed in secret meetings of academicians and literati during 1988-89. Some of its members were already known as dissidents, including the fifty-year-old Abulfez Aliyev, a historian who worked in the Academy of Sciences' archives. He had formerly worked as a translator in Egypt and taught at Baku State University, then was jailed in the mid-1970s for anti-Soviet activity. He emerged as a leading personality in the Popular Front and was dubbed the "messenger" (elchi). His family name, a very common one, was later replaced with "Elchibey" (adding the honorific "bey" to the title). At the first congress of the Popular Front in 1989, Elchibey was elected the organization's chairman. Among the other leaders were men and women in their mid-thirties, including Etibar Mamedov, Isa Gambar(ov), Leyla Yunus(ova), and Zardusht Alizade, all of whom later founded political parties.
This is from Thomas de Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War. NYU Press, 2003:
The year 1989 began quietly in Azerbaijan before accelerating to a terri­fying climax. On 16 July, the Popular Front began its second phase of activity by holding its first congress and electing as its new chairman Abulfaz Elchibey, the man who would later become Azerbaijani presi­dent in 1992. Elchibey was a former dissident and scholar of the Middle East who, even his critics conceded, had great personal honesty and moral authority.
I can cite many more sources about Abulfaz Elchibey being the leader of PFA, if needed. Grandmaster 23:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you.
Following the instructions for this noticeboard, what claim currently being supported by a Perkin reference are you questioning? --Hipal (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm questioning reliability of this source for this particular article in general. Grandmaster 08:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Then you're probably wasting everyone's time. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
This is indeed a mistake that no one with a passing knowledge of Azerbaijan would make. Considering that Azerbaijan is not the topic of this book, I wouldn't use it for anything Azerbaijan-related. Alaexis¿question? 19:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The International Crime of Genocide: The Case of the Tamil People in Sri Lanka

Can the publication The International Crime of Genocide: The Case of the Tamil People in Sri Lanka (Report) [13], published by the Tamil Information Centre authored by Lutz Oette in December 1997 can be considered a reliable source for use in Wikipedia? It doesn't seem listed in Lutz Oette list of publications in his profile at SOAS University of London [14] and the Tamil Information Centre [15] seems to be an advocacy group. Kalanishashika (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kalanishashika, Lutz Oette is a professor of international human rights law and this publication in particular has been cited in other reliable sources such as "Peaceful Intervention in Intra-State Conflicts: Norwegian Involvement in the Sri Lankan Peace Process" (p. 272) and "The Psychology of Nationalism" (p. 157) both published by well-known academic publishers. Given the author's credibility and the report's notability, it can be used on Wikipedia too, with the publisher name explicitly attributed if need be.---Petextrodon (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@Petextrodon: It's important to note that an appearance in a list of references from a reliable source does not demonstrate reliability. A reliable source can say "Reports like [X] are completely wrong on this point." and then list [X] in their references. It's not enough that the report appears in the bibliography because it really matters how the publication is mentioned in the books.
I haven't checked for these particular books for how they mention this report, so I'm making no specific comment on this Oette reference. — MarkH21talk 10:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Right. My point was that it has external coverage by RS for its notability so it's not some fringe publication.---Petextrodon (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
My point is that it could still be fringe and/or unreliable. Those two books could just as well say "Fringe voices such as [X] say that the Earth is a cube". You'd need to pull up how the report is actually mentioned in those books, ideally with a quote. — MarkH21talk 11:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
For example, there are academic books on misinformation where a source's listing in their bibliographies should not be used as evidence of being reliable or non-fringe! — MarkH21talk 11:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I get that. But the author himself is a notable and qualified authority on the matter. Dispute seems to be about the publisher "Tamil Information Centre" which can be characterized as pro-Tamil. The book is found in several university libraries: https://search.worldcat.org/title/822544097 ---Petextrodon (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
If the publisher "Tamil Information Centre" is pro-Tamil, then it can't be an independent source. Furthermore, are we talking about the same Oette here? Professor Oette doesn't seem to acknowledge this report in his works [16]. Hence this looks neither independent nor reliable.Kalanishashika (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@Kalanishashika Yes it's the same Oette who has shown a longtime interest in the Tamil human rights issues. In fact, Seoighe (2017) that you recently removed thanked him in the Acknowledgements. Works mentioned in that website are relatively recent. The report in question is from the 1990s. In any case, Tamil Information Centre can be explicitly attributed if needed.----Petextrodon (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@Petextrodon, I disagree. There is no link established between Professor Oette and the Tamil Information Centre publication. You yourself stated that the Tamil Information Centre is Pro-Tamil. How can a bias source be used for such a serious accusation such as Genocide. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
"There is no link established between Professor Oette and the Tamil Information Centre publication"
What do you mean by that? Are you saying the publisher just lied about the authorship and named a random public figure who could then sue them for libel? It makes no sense. I don't know much about Tamil Information Centre but they look like a Tamil rights advocacy organization. I didn't cite the report for the publisher but the competent authority on the matter. Publishers can be explicitly cited. Even reputable human rights groups are technically advocacy groups.---Petextrodon (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Where does it say that? Kalanishashika (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
You have to be more specific. Also, NGOs like International Crisis Group and UTHR are considered reliable here despite them also advocating a particular policy thus not fully politically neutral: both have publicly advised Tamils to renounce separatism for example. Reports by the Tamil Information Centre are also cited by other reliable secondary sources: "War and Underdevelopment, Volume 2" (p. 207) I see several more in google books. If it's enough for a Oxford University Press publication, then Wikipedia can handle it too.---Petextrodon (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I think one can reasonably take this to be the same Lutz Oette as the one at SOAS based on the "About the Author" on the third page of the report. He is now a professor at an established institution but was not then (he was a recent graduate at the time of publication). He does not include this report in his publications and writes the report as the Tamil Information Centre:

Based on the findings of this study, the Tamil Information Centre (TIC) urges the government of Sri Lanka to comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in particular Article I, V, and VI.
— The International Crime of Genocide: The Case of the Tamil People in Sri Lanka (Report), p. 76

As such, I do not think the reliability of this particular report should be based on his current expertise. It is a report published by the Tamil Information Centre, written from the perspective of the Tamil Information Centre, and as reliable as the Tamil Information Centre. It is certainly reliable for the point of view of the Tamil Information Centre (WP:ABOUTSELF), but what needs to be determined is:
  • Whether it is reliable for statements of fact beyond "the Tamil Information Centre wrote a report that said ____".
  • Whether any inclusion of the Tamil Information Centre's report is of due weight.
Hope that helps. — MarkH21talk 19:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
There has been a misunderstanding here. The report has been authored by Lutz Oette, which is explicitly mentioned in the introduction, it is the afterword by the publishers 'Tamil Information Centre' which is referring to the preceding study by Oette. Furthermore, the TIC explicitly thanks Oette for authoring the study in the 'acknowledgements'. The 'Tamil Information Centre' definitely cannot be taken as the authors of this study. Oz346 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:EXTRAORDINARY: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
What's the extraordinary claim being made? OP didn't mention a specific claim (which makes it more difficult to answer OP's question, since reliability can vary by context). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
"Lutz Oette, an international law specialist, examined the reported cases of enforced disappearances of thousands of Tamils between 1984 and 1997 and stated that they fell within the definition of genocidal acts." This is the line on the Wikipedia page Tamil genocide which the report is being cited for. It is already being explicitly attributed to Lutz Oette and not being said as a statement of fact in the Wikipedia voice. I see no issue with its inclusion. Oz346 (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@Hydrangeans, this is used to make to claim Lutz Oette, an international law specialist, examined the reported cases of enforced disappearances of thousands of Tamils between 1984 and 1997 and stated that they fell within the definition of genocidal acts. in Tamil genocide. This is an extraordinary claim. Kalanishashika (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
It is not an extraordinary claim, it's a fact, Lutz Oette did state this. It would potentially be an extraordinary claim if it was said without attribution in the Wikipedia voice, which it is not. It has been explicitly attributed to Lutz Oette as his opinion, not said simply as a statement of fact. Oz346 (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
If the claim under question is that Oette said this, then it isn't an extraordinary claim if the source is Oette (or a publication Oette wrote), unless it's unusual and exceptional for Oette to consider these enforced disappearances a genocide—has Oette contradicted this in other publications?
If the claim under question is that genocidal acts were perpetrated against Tamils, is that extraordinary either? Simply searching for "Tamil genocide" quickly yields The Tamil Genocide by Sri Lanka: The Global Failure to Protect Tamil Rights Under International Law (Clarity Press, 2009) written by Francis Boyle, also a specialist in international law. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Interesting point, my first attempt was to verify if this publication was written by Lutz Oette and it doesn't appear on his official profile or Google scholar profile (when I checked). I also noticed that Oette has written a lot on the Sri Lankan Civil War in his formal work, however I couldn't find any reference to genocide (did anyone else have any luck). 13:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Kalanishashika (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed with MarkH21, this appears to be a selft-published report of the TIC and as pointed out by Petextrodon, TIC is biased. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Lutz Oette is the author, and TIC is the publisher. It is not self published. TIC are not a legal scholarly group and do not have the capability to author a report such as this, they are merely the publishers. In any case if there is any doubt on the authorship, Lutz Oette could be directly contacted to clarify. Oz346 (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Lutz Oette is a Professor of International Human Rights Law in SOAS University of London are reputed authority in Human Rights.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Since there are scholarly sources that reference this work, we can be pretty sure that there was no fabrication and Oette did make this statement back in 1997.
Whether it can be used on Wikipedia is a matter of WP:DUE. Is he the only one who held/holds this opinion? Alaexis¿question? 19:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Lutz Oette is an authority on human rights and is the is the Director of the Center for Human Rights Law at SOAS, University of London not only in Tamil issues but also in other issues here DW The Guardian AL Jazeera.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

These seem to be fairly recent. What was his authority in 1997 when this report was published? Kalanishashika (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The Mindway Corporation

A friend of mine recently remarked that all mention of this organization seems to have been scrubbed from the web. Curious, I looked for them on Wikipedia, and found that archived webpages from them were used as refs on articles related to '90's industrial/electronic band My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult. This is the context I would have expected, but Mindway Corporation was a fan club that sort of developed into a cult centered around the band. They probably should not be being used a source even for simple things like track listings, which I assume would be available elsewhere. (note that there are a few other organizations with the same or similar names that do not seem to be related to this group) Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

erenow.org

Pages at erenow.org are cited in 14 articles. When I tried to view one of those sources, I got some odd website behavior that made me think the domain had been hijacked. I can't find archive.org versions of all of those cites. Before I remove the ones that I can't replace with archived urls, could someone else validate whether there is really a problem with that domain or it's just me? Schazjmd (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing no issues with the website. I followed the links in the first five articles in the search results at your link, all without any problems. I searched the site using it's internal search engine for "Canada" and "Malta" and viewed the first three hits for each, again without any problems. I didn't check whether the articles verified what they were being used for, but the title did match in all cases where it was given. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the double-check, @Thryduulf, I must have browser issues or malware unrelated to the site. Schazjmd (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Just in case, I've gone through and made sure archive.is has a copy of all 14 (although I've replaced 1 with a copy of the book at the Internet Archive library). Archive.org seems to be forbidden by the site's robots.txt but archive.is doesn't respect that so it works. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

allmovie.com now using film descriptions and actor biographies from Wikipedia

The website allmovie.com, which previously contained independent summaries of films, and actors, has, apparently in the last month or so, switched to short summaries based on Wikipedia entries, headed "Description by Wikipedia". This would seem to make it an unsuitable source for these articles, but it's not clear how pervasive the change was (are there still some articles that are usable?) Can anyone throw light on what the changes have been, before its rating as a Reliable Source is changed? Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that there needs to be a larger discussion again; Allmovie is used on about 10,000 articles, they've restructured their internal data so most existing links do not work, and they've dropped a lot of content like reviews and non-wiki descriptions. On a quick glance, the mirroring appears to be a massive copyright violation as they are not using the material under the correct license, nor are they crediting the authors as required. "Rhythm One" no longer owns this farm, it was purchased or transitioned somehow to "Nataktion LLC" in May of 2020. This seems to just be a very small, straight-up marketing company that is cutting material under license (from some other data stream) and cramming as many ads as possible on each page. It may be best to have separate discussions on Allmusic and Allmovie, as there still appear to be staff reviews on Allmusic. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I think AllMovie is usually an external link template. If it meets WP:ELNO (which I believe it already did anyway), we can remove that template en masse. But if it's used in article bodies, is there a way to ensure archiving for when it was reliable before? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
If Template:AllMovie name and Template:AllMovie title need to be removed from EL (and eventually deleted as these aren't citation templates), then they should be sent to WP:TFD so the correct bots can help. Gonnym (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Enough other sites use Wikipedia as a source that there's a great danger of circular references when they site Wikipedia and Wikipedia cites them... wasn't there an XKCD comic about that? (Yeah, here it is.) *Dan T.* (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Good find. I think there needs to be a RfC regarding Allmovie. I've been dubious about it's reliability for actor bios even before it started using bios from Wikipedia as it had the incorrect DOBs listed. And there used to be fact sheets at the bottom of the actor pages. The actor bios on TVguide.com had the same things. So it looks like Allmovie was copying/pasting stuff beforehand. There actually hasn't been an official consensus on whether or not it's a reliable source. But even that doesn't stop it from being ref spammed on Wikipedia. Kcj5062 (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. Another issue I noticed during a recent AfD discussion is that the ratings on there are extremely questionable. It looks like they give every (released?) film a rating, even when they clearly haven't had someone watch it. For example, try looking up any lost film. I arbitrarily chose Across the Pacific, Within Our Gates, The Call of Youth, and Badger's Green, and all have star ratings on there. hinnk (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Orlando Figes

Talk:Orlando Figes (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Please see the Talk page on my entry, Orlando Figes. Archive evidence has come to light (the Stephen Cohen Archive at Princeton Uni. Library) that should be admitted as a reliable primary source (indeed, the only reliable source) about the role of Memorial in the cancellation of the Russian publication of my book The Whisperers in 2012. The evidence contradicts the reports in the press which suggested that Memorial was officially involved in the cancellation. This is not true, as confirmed by the head of Memorial, Roginsky, in a letter to Stephen Cohen, which also makes it clear that the "Memorial" report was in fact the report of a single researcher. This is also not reflected in the wikipedia entry. I have been told by the active editors that the archive evidence is not considered reliable by Wikipedia policy whereas an inaccurate newspaper report on the role of Memorial IS a reliable source. This is obviously absurd. I am posting this here in the hope of a resolution before considering my legal options. Orlandofiges (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not, how it works here. We prefer secondary sources over primary: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." (from WP:OR) Best course of action is to find a better secondary source and persuade other editors the old source is outdated. Note legal threats (even veiled ones) may lead to a swift block (WP:NLT). Pavlor (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Speaking on the archive in Princeton, I understand that any content placed by an expert to a public domain is already a publication, obviously of WP:SPS nature. Hence, one can use it per WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS if it helps to clarify something and the author is a well known expert, such as Arseny Roginsky, telling something in the area of his expertise. It does not mean we should use it (such materials are typically undue), but I think we can. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think The Indian Express is unreliable for this deleted edit?

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackout_challenge&diff=prev&oldid=1227635674 with an edit summary "Removal of contradiction. Choking is older than the internet, and the internet was not invented by tiktok as the media from stolen territories insinuate. Moreover, the source is unreliable." The source is The Indian Express which RSNP says is generally reliable. And “stolen territories”? The editor is User:Westernethinicity33. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite At the moment almost all of their edits have been reverted, and I've asked what " the media from stolen territories insinuate." in two edit summaries means. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
No response. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Reliable and generally reliable. The Indian Express is a well-established news organization that regularly covers Internet culture as one of its many topic areas. — Newslinger talk 19:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Daily Tribune

Hi, I am concerned with the reliability of this source https://lifestyle.tribune.net.ph/nhcp-celebrates-90-years-gears-up-for-centennial/

Kindly comment whether the source is reliable or not. Thanks

Best Uncle Bash007 (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The source is used in the linked article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Provincial_Building Uncle Bash007 (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
The Daily Tribune appears to be a standard WP:NEWSORG, the lifestyle section may not have as much editorial oversight as the news section but I see no reason it shouldn't be reliable. I do wonder if the content it's supporting in the article is due, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the building. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

metalshockfinland

Is the site metalshockfinland.com a RS for heavy metal and/or biographies of musicians? The source of the dispute rests in Articles for deletion/Troy Stetina (2nd nomination) where an editor argues the source is a “respected source of info” and it is cited over 50 times. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, as I'm unsure on the reliability question, the particular article mentioned in the AfD is an interview so wouldn't count towards notability as it's not independent of the subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

liverpool daily post

is this source reliable? it is used for a dyk nom and according to its respective article, it is a tabloid. more info here. thanks! Brachy08 (Talk) 08:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

From 1966 and for football coverage I'd say yes, it was one of the two local newspapers in Liverpool at the time. I wouldn't say the article referenced counts as the type of 'tabloid journalism' Wikipedia is concerned about. Orange sticker (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's reliable generally speaking. Not a tabloid in the sense of our rules.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

PubPeer as (additional) source

PubPeer is a postprint peer review website with WP:User-generated content. It came up four times in the archives WP:RSN "pubpeer".

This discussion [19] ends with User:Hemiauchenia saying: "Clear exclude unless this gets picked up by other sources like Retraction Watch or something like an expression of concern is published."

Earlier, User:Hemiauchenia also wrote [20]: "When academics complain about peer review I don't think that it is a rejection of review entirely, it is simply that having a public review of a paper where many people can contribute like PubPeer is better, rather than only a few reviewers."

A concrete case in which this source has come up again is a BLP of an academic [21]: a journal has issued an official statement of redundant publication and there is more information on PubPeer, posted by an anonymous user, but which is verifiable. Someone at WP:BLP/N suggested asking advice here. Perhaps @User:Hemiauchenia can weigh in?

My reading is that this particular combination of sources is sufficient (after all, what more sources can one expect to find in a case like this?), which aligns with the archived post, but is there consensus on this? SocialEpisteme (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

As explained to you by mutiple editors at BLP/N, PubPeer is ruled out by WP:BLPSPS and the original journal statement is ruled out by WP:BLPPRIMARY. It is true that "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source", but you don't have the reliable secondary source which is essential for this debate to even begin. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
User:JFHJr suggested asking about it here, which is what I did. PubPeer has come up a few times, so it would be helpful to have a general view on this, also for other cases. SocialEpisteme (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
SocialEpisteme: it looks like you have a resounding NO WP:CONSENSUS on two fora. Sorry for the delayed response; work is nonstop and this little farm needed me more. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
My opinion is the same as last time. Comments made in PubPeer are self-published and not appropriate as sources. It is not enough for sources to merely exist, they must demonstrate that the issue is significant enough to warr mentioning in the bio.ant Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Not reliable as it's user generated content, so it can't be used for any verification purposes. This is doubly so for BLP articles, where even if it was reliable it would still be unusable per WP:SPS/WP:BLPSPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the posters above, PubPeer is anonymous/pseudonymous, self-published user-generated content. I dont see any way in which this could be a WP:RS even if some accounts can be linked to well known people. Basically no, PubPeer cannot be used as a source. --hroest 11:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Harry Benson in the Marriage Foundation for online dating divorce trends?

At online dating, there is some disagreement about the reliability of a source concerning divorce rates of people who met through online dating.

The source is Relative Strangers, Harry Benson, Marriage Foundation, 2021

Harry Benson is a pro-marriage advocate who is a team member of the Marriage Foundation. His profile at Marriage Foundation is available in this link.

My position is that this is a self-published source, and it doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed. I am unable to find evidence that Benson could be considered a subject matter expert. CommonKnowledgeCreator, on the other hand, disagrees. He suggests that it doesn't really matter if the source is self-published or not, and that Benson may in fact have training on statistics (he is currently a doctoral student).

The talk page discussion at the Wiki article can be found here.

Thanks for reading. Amaebi-uni (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Predatory journal for Doha Corniche

Elspamo4 (talk · contribs) keeps reinstating a citation to a predatory journal in Doha Corniche, e.g. [22].

The so-called "American Journal of Environmental Engineering" (why an American journal would accept a Qatari submission is already a red flag) is published by Scientific & Academic Publishing, one of the more horrendous predatory publishers out there.

This is not a reputable source, nor a peer-review outlet, and the defense that its author is a head of departement, and that the paper is hosted on a university website, does not make this paper reliable.

I move that this paper is purged from Wikipedia, just like any other SAPUB papers, per WP:PREDWHEN.

If it's true that the Doha Corniche "role as a gathering place, often referred to as the "urban majlis", is integral to Doha's identity and social fabric", then there will be other, actually reliable sources, that will talk about it.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I've decided to self-revert since you raise a very good point that a non-predatory source should be easily found for such general statements about a prominent landmark. I won't re-add this reference or journal. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't see if this is a predatory journal. I see some blog websites talking bout SAP, but not better sources on it. Perhaps I am missing something. If it is predatory, it does not hurt in finding another source like a magazine or article saying similar things. It is getting harder to track these publishers. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
SAPUB is obviously predatory [23]. It's a junk outlet with fake impact factors. There's a reason we have them on our edit filter list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Is there a reason why a source by a subject-matter expert published predatorily is not considered reliable, when an expert’s self-published source is? (Not necessarily related to this particular case). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Theoretically a SME could publish in a predatory journal and be considered reliable, it would be judged as a self-published source. So per WP:SPS they would need to have been published as a SME in the relevant field by other reliable independent sources first. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
There's also the fact that an 'SME' who mostly publishes with predatory outlets is very likely not an SME at all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Blue Virginia for WP:POLEND

Blue Virginia is a popular political blog covering Virginia politics written by Lowell Feld (arguably a subject-matter expert in Virginia politics) since 2005. I view Blue Virginia as a reliable (albeit biased) source that is self-published by a recognized expert so requiring in-text attribution in certain uses.

In addition to content written by him and a team of writers, they also provide daily news roundups with granular updates added by Feld in the comments (see for example, yesterday's roundup and comments section), arguably a limited form of coverage. These comments are used extensively in Virginia political articles as citations for endorsements (see for example, 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia).

WP:POLEND requires that for endorsements by individuals, they should "only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources".

While Blue Virginia/Feld is reliable and (in most cases) independent of the candidates/endorsers involved, is simply reposting endorsements is sufficient coverage to meet the WP:POLEND standard or should such endorsements be removed?

(FWIW: I think WP:POLEND should be adjusted so that endorsements from notable figures in a district can be included with reliable sourcing even if not independent, but I am not sure how or where to go about getting consensus for such a change.) Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Field appear to be an subject matter expert per WP:SPS, so would be reliable for non-BLP content. I don't see that simply reposting endorsements would be secondary coverage. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm a bit skeptical on using Blue Virginia (sitelink) for BLP content. Its stated goal is to be a group blog with the goal of electing a specific type of Democrat. It could be run by an SME (I don't have time to dig in on that). But, even if it were run by an SME, "X endorsed candidate Y" is almost always going to be making a claim about a living person when the endorsement is in the context of a U.S. House race, so that sort of exception seems inapplicable here.
If the website is merely re-hosting some sort of press release, then one could reliably cite the original press release as such, and use via= field to identify the source. But the existence of a release is not sufficient for inclusion under WP:POLEND, which requires that Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources. After all, simply reposting endorsements is plainly not independent coverage of the endorsement itself.
(As an aside, if a single partisan political group blog is the only place covering a particular endorsement—even if the endorsement was made by a notable person—it's probably not something that belongs in an article for reasons that proceed from the principle of due weight. That being said, such a determination may well be outside the scope of the reliable sourcing noticeboard and might be better handled on the talk page of the relevant guideline.)
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, @Red-tailed hawk + @ActivelyDisinterested. This was also my view which I started to implement but I self-reverted given how many of these are sourced entirely to comments in Blue Virginia.
On the aside: I may at some point open a wider discussion on the WP:POLEND criteria for individual endorsements on the relevant talk page but understand concerns about weight. That said, even with local news becoming hollowed-out in a lot of the world, I think there's some inherent weight to a notable local politician in a locale endorsing in a race (ie., state sen Lashrecse Aird endorsing state sen Jennifer Boysko in the VA-10 primary is, I believe, due despite the sourcing given that Aird is a state senator representing the congressional district in question). As you said, not the right venue for that discussion though. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The apparent occidental preoccupation with "endorsements" to the side; WP:DUE is always "per the sources", never "despite the sourcing". Rotary Engine talk 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

East India Story

I'm wondering if East India Story is a reliable source, specifically to support the biographical information in Dasari Subrahmanyam. The article about him has a named writer. The website's About page says "There is need to clear this wronged image and showcase the splendor of this entire region in all its social and cultural splendour", but I cannot definitively tell from this how much or what bias the writing on the site has, and how much oversight or quality control there is. I see that the website requests submissions, but again it's not clear whether this is effectively self-published or user-generated content or whether there are processes to prevent publication of inaccurate material. The About page says that "www.eastindiastory.com is a product of Dream Alchemist LLP", but I can't find much about that company either. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The profiles of authors on the website suggest that this is more of a venue for hobbyist-writers than an edited and fact-checked publication. And the purple prose of the particular piece jam-packed with superlatives, doesn't engender trust either. It would be better instead to track down the 2011 India Today issue in which Subrahmanyam was apparently profiled or the biography by Dasari Venkata Ramana. Abecedare (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The South African (3rd time of asking)

(Restored from unanswered archived): I have a question about The South African as a reliable source. I came across this article and it seems they have directly copied from our Des van Jaarsveldt page. I remember last time I came across this, it resulted in an RFC that led to depreciation (WP:ROYALCENTRAL). So I'm fulfilling WP:RFCBEFORE and asking here if we should consider it a RS if its hosting plagiarised content? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  • A lot of their web content looks AI-generated. The "Furry Fun Fact of the Day" [24] is not exactly fun, because it's about feline distemper. And no human puts an exclamation mark on "However, feline distemper has an unexpected quirk – some cats who survive the initial infection become lifelong carriers!". Unsurprisingly, at the bottom of the article ... "Artificial Intelligence assisted in compiling this article." Meanwhile, a lot of the other "stories" are tabloid gossip and trivia [25]. Probably needs a discussion to deprecate. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    • I suspected as much @Black Kite:. That is why I wanted to hear from others because if it wasn't for RFCBEFORE, I'd have started a depreciation RFC right away. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
      Certainly needs to be used with caution, paying attention to the author. If they are staff, it may fine but some articles are written by those described as "content creators" or similar (ex. [26] and [27]). I have also come across articles written by marketing/PR professionals. Also their TOU has a statement "The opinions of advertisers, writers, commenters and contributors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TheSouthAfrican.com, Blue Sky Publications (Pty) Ltd or any of our affiliates." It is unclear what is meant by "writer" or "contributor" S0091 (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
      Here's an example of articles written by a marketing professional [28]. S0091 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Symposium on Applications and the Internet Workshops (SAINT)

Could I get a third opinion on this source recently added to open-source license? The grammar and some of the claims in the cited paper struck me as bizarre, but I am unfamiliar with the symposium:

Thanks, Rjjiii (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Conference proceedings are bottom-level references, journals and proper books are better. They're better than blogs, but not by much. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
And more specifically, that's a workshop paper - it's not part of the main conference, and was probably written as an overview of a short presentation or discussion. Looking at the full text, the author's classification of licenses is not quite as nonsensical as the abstract makes it sound, but it's (at best) now 20 years out of date. The economic point it makes is not developed in detail or based on references. I wouldn't use it as a source. Adam Sampson (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
The abstract here is really one of the least coherent paragraphs of text: Licenses of open source software (OSS) are quiet various but can be categorised into three. That is GPL (GNU general Public License) like, LGPL (GNU Lesser general Public License) like, or MPL (Mozilla Public License) like. Although there are numbers of licenses, most of OSS projects are accepting GPL or GPL compatible. In reality GPL is one of the most effective powers for distribution; self-reproduction system in it. More over it also has economic "positive network externality". This mean that open source software is better for basis of social infrastructure.
Uh... what? jp×g🗯️ 18:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to Japanese researchers trying their best to write in English. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I mean, it's more than a grammar issue, the "categorized into three" thing makes no sense -- what about apache, mit etc (which I'm pretty sure are more used than MPL)?? jp×g🗯️ 21:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
They explain what they mean immediately after. GPL-like licences, LGPL-like licenses, and MPL-like licenses.
Either they aren't aware of MIT/Apache/etc.., or they consider them to be GPL-like / LGPL-like / etc.... I haven't read the full paper, so I don't know which of the two they mean. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Ah so it's Japanese who are responsible for valley-girl genes like "egf-like module containing mucin-like hormone receptor-like 1"... JoelleJay (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Another season, another Bluey source up for grabs

Weeks after "The Sign's" DYK appearance, another Series 3 episode--Cricket (Bluey) (draft)--is more or less likely to meet WP:NEPISODE if we persevere hard enough. If this essay below passes WP:RS, then let me know and I'll give it a go soon enough. (Thankfully, the source site du jour does have a WP article, but I'm asking here in advance as a precaution.)

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Slgrandson, the source looks reasonably reliable to me, and Fatherly has regular and apparently uncontroversial use on other articles. From googling, I'd say there are enough other sources to support notability even if this one is rejected. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers: Thanks for the tip--not to mention there are a few more pointers at WP:Library's ProQuest. Setting it up at AFC any day from now. Take care! --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources from Africa

Our perennial sources list seems to be missing an entire continent? They're are several huge English speaking countries in Africa, e.g. South Africa, surely we can find a few sources to include? MWQs (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

They're assumed reliable if they have a reasonable editing policy and seem to be talking sense. They're only put in RSP if there's been questions about them a few times. NadVolum (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
See WP:RSPCRITERIA and WP:RSPMISSING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
But when people are arguing toward a consensus on controversial international issues they often skim the perennial sources green list, which is severely skewed to UK / USA. We need to fix this somehow? MWQs (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that English Wikipedia has a lack of editors who are familiar enough with those sources to be able to make a determination. It's a known problem when writing articles about Africa among other under-represented regions. If you're interested in helping to correct this systemic bias, one good place I can think of to start is with WikiProjects. A bunch of the larger ones maintain lists of what they believe to be reliable sources for their topic area, such as WP:VG/RS. These don't have any official standing, but they're often a good starting point for discussions. It might be worth reaching out to either WP:AFRICA or other country-specific WikiProjects to set something up, since they have editors who understand and are interested in those regions and might be able to help come up with a list. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
The lack of familiarity is why we need some suggestions. And it is not just for stories about Africa, we very often cite European and North American sources for international issues as if these two continents represent the global consensus (I've even seen people claim this based on sources only from the USA and UK). A couple of recommendations from elsewhere would really help, and South Africa would be a good start. MWQs (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
This is simply not what the RSP is for, and if editors are misusing it this won't solve that issue. Instead this is something better worked on within projects, see for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources or Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources.
The RSP is not, will never be, and should never be considered, a list of all reliable or unreliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
To clarify a source should only be on the list if it's reliability has been repeatedly brought into question, so if a source is reliable and no-one has ever doubted it's reliability it shouldn't be on the list. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • To address the posters original question: One suggestion is to compile a list of sources and put it somewhere. I am contemplating a similar move for a similar problem. Another is that when I was editing Panama Papers there was actually a lot of corruption going unaddressed in Africa, and yes, what is a good source is a problem, especially as online publications in under-resourced communities tend to get dismissed as "blogs" regardless of their adherence to the RS criteria. I found the website for the ICIJ very helpful for finding RS. PS: I noticed that a lot of South African sources were physically located i Zimbabwe. hth Elinruby (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Is The Australian reliable?

The Australian has recently come under critique for comparing the leader of a major Australian political party to Adolf Hitler. Refer to this episode of Media Watch on ABC News (Australia). The source has previously been discussed here and here. A search indicates that it is currently in use in 10.887 articles. Is this source reliable? TarnishedPathtalk 15:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That was in an opinion piece. Oddly enough the paper changed the online headline afterwards (but not the body text which contained the same comparison). It's Murdoch media which makes me initially skeptical of reliability by virtue of what some other such media is like, but that's really saying nothing substantial. I don't think this opinion piece affects anything. VintageVernacular (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
It's an opinion piece and so has little bearing on reliability unless it contains outright lies. No one will be using this article to state in wikivoice that Adam Bandt is similar to Hitler. All major newspapers publish clunker opinion essays from time to time, it's silly to suggest that this could somehow overturn a consensus for general reliability. Astaire (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
All major newspapers publish clunker opinion essays from time to time, it's silly to suggest that this could somehow overturn a consensus for general reliability
You can say that but it doesn't stop other users from trying to do that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Saying that Bandt is similar to Hitler is an outright lie. If this ends up in a courtroom, this would very likely end up quite costly for The Australian given Australia's deformation laws and the lack of a US style constitutional protections on free speech. TarnishedPathtalk 06:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
That's speculative/subjective. Even if that did happen it would probably tell more about Aus defamation law than The Australian. I mean the argument in the op/ed literally started off with "In my opinion..." VintageVernacular (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
While it may say a bit about Australian deformation laws, any editor would have some basic knowledge of the legal framework which they operate in and allowing obviously defamatory material to publication speaks to a lack of oversight. TarnishedPathtalk 08:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
It remains the leading Australian newspaper. An opinion piece says nothing about its reliability. Riposte97 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
The leading Australian newspaper? Firstly, I don't know what's given you that strange idea. Secondly, even if that was true (which it's not under any metric), that's not something which would determine its reliability. That it's an opinion piece is beside the point, given that there is a demonstrative lack of ng editorial oversight which has allowed obviously defamatory material to be published. TarnishedPathtalk 06:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
omg. I know almost nothing about Australia but I would suggest that anyone who arrives here take a look at the other five or six threads about Riposte97's grasp of policy and guidelines on the rest of the board. Elinruby (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby, The Australian is one of Murdoch's News Corp newspapers in Australia. Murdoch's newspapers in Australia can at times be not much better than his Fox News. TarnishedPathtalk 08:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Aha. Well to chine in just a little on something I *can* comment on, you are quite correct in pointing out that a source's reliability has nothing to do with its circulation.Elinruby (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Just to make it clear the circulation is amongst the lowest of the major Australian newspapers, which is why I find the claim that it's the leading Australian newspaper to be quite odd. Not that it is even a relevant argument, which we agree on. TarnishedPathtalk 08:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
The reason I say that, is because it has historically been crucial in setting media narratives in Australia, partly because it is one of the only print newspapers published nationwide. If you want to know what will be on the ABC at 19:00, read The Australian at 07:00. Riposte97 (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
It sets narratives for the rest of Murdoch's Australian papers, a large amount of which is tabloid journalism. That's hardly something of note and again does not speak to it being reliable. TarnishedPathtalk 10:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
They say they are bound by the Standards of Practice of the Australian Press Council and have an editorial code of conduct, and that they publish corrections. Seems to be the trappings of a generally reliable WP:NEWSORG source. An inflammatory opinion piece going full Godwin has little bearing on this. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
bound by the Standards of Practice of the Australian Press Council is an extremely weak statement given the standards have no power to enforce any undertakings, which is no great surprise given the real conflict of interest the Australian Press Council has given newspapers representatives form part of the council. Having an editorial code of conduct and actually adhering to it are two different things. Point 1.4 of their code of conduct, which is also applicable to opinion pieces, states However, this does not allow us to knowingly publish inaccurate or misleading information and publications should correct significant inaccuracies or misleading material once they have been recognised as detailed in Section 2.0 - Mistakes. Clearly they are not adhering to their code of conduct and there is therefore a demonstrative lack of editorial oversight. TarnishedPathtalk 10:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that the Hitler opinion falls into the realm of factual vs non-factual. Most of it is the barely falsifiable personal reflections of the author. Rants about politicians being like Hitler are nothing new, nothing peculiar to this source, and nothing that would stand a chance of making its way into wikivoice anyway, so what are we trying to evaluate here? We already shouldn't be using these polemics as sources or weightings, except (as may actually be the case here) where the opinion piece itself receives significant coverage in other reliable sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  • (e/c) We should distinguish between The Australian's general reliability and the reliability of Francis Galbally's opinion piece on Adam Bandt. As usual for newspapers' opinion pieces, the latter is only reliable for the fact Galbally has these opinions on Bandt. A newspaper can publish contentious opinion pieces without impacting on the reliability of its broader newsgathering operations – indeed, if we downgraded newspapers whenever they published an iffy opinion column, we would end up without any newspapers to cite. A relatively recent, well-attended discussion was near-unanimous in finding The Australian reliable for facts; a howler in its opinion pages is not grounds to revisit this. – Teratix ₵ 10:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Obvious error in article, sourced to a reliable source

What should be done when there is a clear and unambiguous error, whose source is considered reliable, but didn't fact check or proof read that particular error? The specifics are a claim that "from November 1977 to October 2000, no Israelis were killed inside the Green Line." , sourced to a book by Oxford University press. This is an obviously false claim, (see for example Dizengoff Street bus bombing), and editors are saying it is a typo - the 1977 should be 1997 - but he false claim remains in the article, with its source. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

We should not be fact-checking sources, but what we should do is say what the bulk of sources say. So in this case remove the text as there are plenty of sources that refute the claim. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
This is premature, there is an ongoing discussion about what to do about this. Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
See WP:WSAW. Loki (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
If there was evidence that this was more than a typo, I’d say a discussion here over if the individual book is still able to be considered reliable or not. Even with the claim that there may have been a small number of deaths after 1997, however, I can’t imagine that this is a big enough issue to call the book into question as a whole. And one book having issues isn’t generally grounds for calling into question an entire publisher.
As we should always be doing, when sources contradict and there is a strong consensus among other sources that one source is wrong, the incorrect source shouldn’t be cited for that piece of information unless extenuating circumstances merit inclusion with attribution. This is a discussion that appears to be ongoing on the talk page and there isn’t really anything for RSN at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Editor believes they are exempt from adding references

I have had a content dispute at Turkmeneli with editor Kirkukturk3 who believes they are exempt from adding references when asked to do so. User_talk:Kirkukturk3#June_2024 This is the talkpage discussion. Semsûrî (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This should go to WP:ANI because that is a behaviour problem and this noticeboard is about whether specific sources are reliable. I have not looked at the article at all but no, they would not be exempt from adding references. That does not happen. So I encourage you to raise the issue at ANI, and focus on the fact that he is doing whatever he is doing. Do not mention content dispute. The problem is that he thinks he does not have to add references. Elinruby (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I was unsure if it was here or ANI, but thanks. Semsûrî (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
As you noted this is "when asked to do so".....presumably requests on specific items. That is when citing it becomes mandatory....when the requirement changes from "verifiable" to "verified" North8000 (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't know all the details, but the map used in the infobox is based on this[29] map of unknown providence on a now defunct website. It would be good to have something reliable to back it up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Iranwire

Is it a reliable source for statements about Iranian politicians like in 2024 Iranian presidential election#Debates ? AlexBobCharles (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

From a cursory search they seem to more or less get WaPo and the USHMM's approval. So my initial thought is yes. VintageVernacular (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Is "science publishing corporation" aka sciencepubco.com a reliablesource for Khasa dam?

And is Wikimapia? Unrelated to us but seems too usergenerated. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The first publisher was included on Beall's List. In the absence of any reason to think a particular publication of theirs is reliable, I would default to not. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
It's a terrible predatory publisher. So no. Wikimapia is like any other wiki, also not reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
the "science publishing cooperation" includes many good details about the dam like its capacity and length, I don't see the problem since I only used the overall information about the dam and ignored unnecessary ones. Kirkuk☆ (Selaj/konuş) 17:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Just because some of their publishes are regarded as terrible doesn't mean this one is terrible too as its only Info about the dam which other sites other than the paper use too. Kirkuk☆ (Selaj/konuş) 17:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a higher standard. A publisher that consistently publishes poor content should not be used. — MarkH21talk 20:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • In addition to the non-RS journal, the particular article is an unreadable mess. The abstract begins:
Aiming in this research was to have a clear view about the behavior of Khasa-Chai Dam during the draw down action taking into consideration the newly built of this dam which was filling during the time of this article, the upstream slope was investigated by taking draw down of the water from the reservoir.
Possibly machine generated or translated (using 2018 tech). Unusable. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikimapia is WP:UGC and so generally unacceptable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Jacobin and The New Statesman falsely claimed that Noam Chomsky died

See here. Though they have both retracted the claim, it is in my opinion still a problem that they published it in the first place. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

These mistakes happen, and Jacobin appears to have responding appropriately by publicly correcting themselves.
I'm more concerned by the New Statesman. For an error of this size we would expect a public retraction from a reliable, but as far as I can tell they have not made one. BilledMammal (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Given his serious health issues and advanced age I don't think we should be so quick to throw the book at these publications for going off half cocked. Its not the same thing as reporting a healthy 45 year old as dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the nature of the error is relevant. Repeating a report of the death of a 95-year old man, who was in fact hospitalized with a fairly serious stroke, may be jumping the gun but is not exactly a hallmark of a source being generally unreliable. BD2412 T 22:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with HEB and BD2412 here; while it is a failing, in terms of reliability it is a venial rather than a mortal sin. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Infallibility is not a condition for being a reliable source. If there is a long pattern of serious errors or fabrication of stories etc, that would be an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
This is where WP:RSBREAKING comes into play. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
That may be fair, though frankly I'm skeptical that the most recent RfC on Jacobin was correctly closed. Reading through the discussion, it does not seem like the community found the source to be better than marginally reliable, but the closer slapped GREL on it. It might be worth having another discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The Parramatta Advertiser

The Parramatta Advertiser is a local newspaper in New South Wales, Australia. There is an ongoing debate at Talk:Greystanes, New South Wales about its reliability. It has been bought out by The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), which has been previously deemed unreliable,[30] and recently criticized for a headline containing a slur.(https://www.thepinknews.com/2018/07/16/australian-newspaper-under-fire-for-scarlett-johansson-trny-headline/) The Parramatta Advertiser's web presence is now all through thedailytelegraph.com. Their domain http://parramattaadvertiser.com.au/ has redirected to https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/parramatta since 2012,[31] and so is flagged red by User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter.js. It was a separate paper until 2020.[32] In 2020, the parent company ceased printing many local papers including this one.[33][34] Those local papers are now a part of NewsLocal.

So this is kind of 3 questions:

  1. Was The Parramatta Advertiser a reliable source pre-2012?
  2. Was it a relaible source from 2012 to 2020?
  3. Are the recent Parramatta "NewsLocal" stories treated the same as other Daily Telegraph stories?

Thanks, Rjjiii (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The article you have linked (The Pink News) seems irrelevant to this discussion as it does not mention the Parramatta Advertiser. It also does not really impact upon the publication's reliability. Bigots can reliably report fact. I do not disagree that Australian Daily Telegraph is unreliable, I just don't think it sits well conflating a publication's world-view with their reliability. Their printing patently false claims should be what makes them unreliable. I am queer myself, but I don't believe we should tar every bigoted publication with the same brush. Also, as I noted at Talk:Greystanes, New South Wales, two !votes for "generally unreliable" do not make a consensus. I have not had time to thoroughly research the Parramatta Advertiser yet but I think it's important to focus the discussion on that publication's reliability and not their parent organisation's transphobic comments. Adam Black talk • contribs 20:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
One important question is if the Parramatta Advertiser has editorial independence still. I currently see no evidence of unreliability of the Parramatta Advertiser. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Can developer guides be used as RS by 3rd party

I have an article I'm working on, Draft:SurrealDB. The database has dozens of online articles about the database from various sources such as 3rd party/secondary company blogs unassociated with SurrealDB. These company blogs and programming guide websites have no direct affiliation with SurrealDB, and otherwise seem generally notable.

Can these sources be used as reliable sources to establish notability for software and databases such as SurrealDB? I ask because as a developer, we often use guides such as these as reliable sources of information. Mr vili talk 15:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that (a) the draft purports to be about a company, not one of their products, and (b) the draft didn't cite any sources at all for this off-topic content. As for 'generally notable', I'd have to suggest that this particular non-sequitur illustrates (once again) why the Draft, and the previous AfD, (along with other content from this contributor) drew so much negative commentary regarding sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Are they about the database or the company? One doesn't inherit notability about the other. As to the particular question there's no simple answer, in general blogs are not considered reliable sources (WP:BLOGS) but that may not fit the definition of the sources you are asking about.
For reliability sources should be reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
For notability you should look for significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
One thing to be careful of with products is sources that have a financial interest in their promotion, such sources wouldn't be considered 'independent'. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
What specific source cited for what claim are you talking about? This board is not the best venue to try and get feedback on the reliability, independence and quality of coverage of 26 sources currently cited by the draft; that is best done on the draft talkpage. See also WP:THREE. Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Here are some examples:
1: https://docs.zeet.co/guides/deploy/surrealdb/
2: https://www.linode.com/docs/guides/surrealdb-for-web-applications/
3: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/how-to-use-surrealdb-with-fresh-framework/
@Abecedare @ActivelyDisinterested, they're not exactly blogs, but more so guides and tutorials - could you provide thoughts on each one? What can and can't they be used for. (if you can also, let me know whether they are more applicable to an article about the database software, and/or to the database company) Mr vili talk 17:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
The first is very minor, the second is within the promotion of something they have a financial interest in, the third is better but it's mostly to do with how to do something on the database rather than discusion of the database or company. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
To clarify the third has discussion/opinion about the product, but it is still passing. It could be used for verification, but I'm unsure how much it adds for notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
User guides can sometimes be used as reliable sources for information on software, but other sources are generally necessary to show that the information itself is actually something that would be covered an in encyclopedia. Remember that Wikipedia isn’t a user guide, nor a manual, nor a compendium of all features of a software. In any case, the mere existence of user guides does virtually nothing to establish notability. It is routine coverage - it is expected that tech websites and other websites will publish how to guides and the like for software. Significant coverage would need to go beyond that routine coverage that’s expected. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
And needless to say, guides to a product a company sells can't be used to demonstrate notability of the company. The company the article is supposedly about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Your comment misinterprets the distinction between significant coverage and WP:ROUTINE. If a reliable source publishes detailed coverage of a piece of software, that's WP:SIGNIFICANT as it addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Perhaps the sources provided here don't meet that criterion, but it's strange reasoning to say that because technology websites frequently write about technology, they can't be used to establish notability for technology. Would a book on a piece of software not suffice if it was published by O'Reilly Media, which routinely publishes guides on technology? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
That wasn’t my intent - my comment was intended to talk solely about developer guides and how tos, not to comment on actual in depth articles published about a software on a tech website or other source. I personally don’t believe something that entirely or virtually entirely (all but a couple sentences) serves as a user guide/manual/how to/etc. qualifies as “significant” coverage, regardless of how detailed the guide is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Huffington Post on American politics

Currently HuffPo is list as "no consensus" or "unclear" reliability at WP:RSP. This was based on a 2020 RfC whose close and comments focused very much on the bias of the outlet's American political coverage. Recent practice here has been to focus on false reporting, rather than biased reporting, when evaluating a source. Is there any appetite for a new discussion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the current yellow/no consensus rating is appropriate. The Huffington Post is consistently biased. Name an issue in American public life, and I can tell you what the Huffington Post "thinks" about it, without consulting the paper. That's not good. For someone who is not deeply grounded in American politics, that bias could be misleading. However, I still think the paper is perfectly usable as a source in many contexts. I don't think changing it to either GENREL or GUNREL would be an improvement. Pecopteris (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
A source being biased is not a problem as long as we comply with policies of Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if this affects anything, but reportedly some employees from BuzzFeed News were shuffled into HuffPost when the former shut down last year. Though who knows how many were shuffled rather than laid off anyway. VintageVernacular (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Huffpo is such a terrible online blog/site, and I really don't like it. It should be removed from every article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
You're right, FFF; bias, even consistent, is not a good reason to downgrade reliability. Attribution also doesn't require WP:MREL; we have a few green-listed sources at RSP where attribution is encouraged. HuffPo does original reporting; for example they've recently done some very solid journalism on internal Biden admin deliberations regarding Middle-East policy, for which they've been praised by journalists working for "green" (WP:GREL) outlets; and I saw no issues with the articles from a journalistic ethics standpoint. DFlhb (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
DFlhb and by extension FFF are correct here regarding bias vs. reliability; IMO the distinction to be made here is between Huffington Post's original reporting, which tends to be quite good and doesn't appear to have reliability issues; and Huffington's Post's non-original reporting, which does. For example, I've been published on HuffPo as a "Contributor" based on licensed re-publication of my work on other sites (like Quora) that would *not* meet WP:RS standards. But in contrast, this obit of Howard Fineman from today seems fine. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the 2020 RfC, it's surprising to see that it was closed with "editors conclude that the Huffington Post's reliability varies". To me it looks like GREL consensus, with the additional comment that some/many editors believe that it is politically bias (like most newspapers), and thus attribution should be used etc, but not MREL/NC. Maybe the strength of argument is what let down the Option 1 voters? If the RfC was contested, I wouldn't be surprised to see it overturned. CNC (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I honest-to-God think we should just remove the colors from the table so we are forced to read the text and risk using our brains to interpret what the consensus is about the sources. It seems like common sense that you would not write, uh, Democrats are better than Republicans and experts say you should vote for them.[1] or vice versa and cite it to HuffPost or Fox etc even if they are reliable for other stuff. jp×g🗯️ 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I support your suggestion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I also agree. The "traffic light" system of colours is not helpful. It is an oversimplification that does not give meaningful guidance on when and how to use the sources on the list. The red and green colours, in particular, promote a false dichotomy that sources are either that sources are either 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate. Some of the sources marked as generally reliable are not reliable for some topics, and some of the sources marked as generally unreliable are reliable for some topics. The "Legend" sort of says this, but it does not stop the indiscriminate systematic removal or addition of sources based on the traffic light system. James500 (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the "International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research" good for any use?

It's listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1 and used quite a bit. [35] Doug Weller talk 06:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No; it is not indexed by Scopus or by others. Presumably, one of the many paper-mills out of India. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Looks like it needs to be removed from articles. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  • A cut-rate pay and get published enterprise. I can imagine scenarios in which an article published by IJSER is citable on wikipedia a la WP:SELFPUB (eg, work that has been lauded, and not just cited, in genuine scholarly publications) but I doubt that such cases exist in practice. IMO mass removal is justified with editors asked to make explicit arguments if they believe that citations to any particular IJSER article should be retained. Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP and news articles that report what it says

PROPOSAL WITHDRAWN
James500 has withdrawn the proposal diff and struck the original post diff. CNC (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

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

I was going to comment in an RfC about a certain publication above on this page, but I found that there are so many problems with RSP itself that I cannot comment on how the source should be ranked at RSP. So, I think we need to discuss RSP itself. And my thoughts are as follows:

  • Oppose all further listings at WP:RSP. WP:RSP is promoting a false dichotomy that all sources are either 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate, and that their pigeon hole can be determined by (invariably recentist) cherrypicking (and sometimes outright misrepresentation) of sources, evidence and facts, chosen in accordance with the nominator's own confirmation bias. My view is that the problem is WP:RSP itself, since WP:RSP is the worst kind of WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:POVFORK and vehicle for (sometimes inept) original research (WP:OR) and unverifiable or demonstrably factually inaccurate claims and unproven or fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) and WP:HOAXES and propaganda etc etc etc. Because WP:RSP is in the project space, it is allowing editors to publish what is in reality a fake encyclopedia article, while completely bypassing FAKEARTICLE, V, NOR, FRINGE and NPOV, amongst other content policies, and to entrench that fake article content against WP:BOLD in such a way that it cannot be removed without an RfC, even when it is demonstrably factually inaccurate. Worse than that, WP:RSP is creating dangerous citogenesis, because supposedly "reliable" sources are actually taking WP:RSP's claims seriously, and reporting that those claims affect a source's credibility, even where they are being made by Wikipedians whose identity and academic/professional credentials are unverified (meaning they could be sockpuppets/meatpuppets, with no relevant education or knowledge or competence), who could have an ideological agenda, and/or an undisclosed conflict of interests, and whose consensus is likely to amount to Wikiality, or even a hatchet job or puffery. The result is that the completely unreliable (and sometimes demonstrably false) claims made by WP:RSP end up increasingly being put into the Wikipedia articles about the sources listed in WP:RSP. [This in turn is liable to create a feedback loop of ever increasing puffery, or ever increasing smears, generated by the opinions (or opinion mongering) of the Wikipedia "community" itself (or its sockpuppets). An enormous list of brief comments that are typically very uninformative is not actually useful either]. I strongly advise that WP:RSP be marked with Template:Historical and put out of its misery. Failing that I advise that the listing for WP:RSP in WP:RSP itself (it is presently included in the entry for Wikipedia) to be downgraded from Option 3: Generally unreliable to Option 4: Deprecated. And I advise that all external news articles that report the claims made by WP:RSP, so far as they report those claims, be downgraded to Option 3: Generally unreliable on grounds they are inherently WP:CIRCULAR (to stop the claims made by WP:RSP about particular sources being directly or indirectly cited or quoted in Wikipedia articles about those particular sources). [For example, our article on CNET should not report that "Wikipedia editors began the process of downgrading CNET's reliability rating as a source" because Wikipedia is not a reliable source for whether CNET is reliable. The article CNET should not report that user generated content even if CNET really is completely unreliable. I choose this example because CNET is not, as far as I am aware, politically controversial. Unfortunately, WP:RSP contains a number of entries that are so politically controversial as to constitute a serious threat to Wikipedia's neutrality. The whole point of V, NOR and NPOV is that Wikipedia is not supposed to change anyone's reputation, or to change public opinion, from what it already is, as expressed in reliable sources.] Other editors have expressed concerns about WP:RSP recently: such as this editor and this editor and this editor and others. I think we have reached the point where, unless the issues with WP:RSP are dealt with, we are going to need to have an RfC on WP:RSP sooner or later. James500 (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC) I have struck my comment because, although this proposal has already been withdrawn due to lack of support (see below), editors are affecting to be unware that this proposal has been withdrawn. James500 (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Where exactly are the "fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) and WP:HOAXES and propaganda" that you are claiming exist in WP:RSP? — Newslinger talk 19:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Could you give examples of fake articles it has allowed or instances of citogenisis it has caused? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
To take the CNET example to begin with, this article and this article are citogenesis, because both have been included in CNET as evidence that it is unreliable. (In this case, I am not saying that CNET is reliable, I am saying that the opinions of Wikipedians about CNET's reliability should not appear in the article CNET, because they prove nothing about CNET's reliability). There seem to be a lot of of other cases where "Newspaper X says that Wikipedia says Newspaper Y is reliable/unreliable" comments are starting to appear in mainspace articles. James500 (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
That's not quite citogenisis, but rather reporting on Wikipedia. The article doesn't (and shouldn't) say CNET is unreliable, but it should included that third parties have reported on relevant internal Wikipedia discussions. Citogenisis would be the websites reporting that CNET was using AI based on the Wikipedia discussion, and then Wikipedia aren't using that website to say that CNET was using AI in the article on Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
If the article says "Wikipedia editors began the process of downgrading CNET's reliability rating as a source" that implies that CNET is not reliable because Wikipedia says it is not reliable [from the relevant date]. At the very least its inclusion in the CNET article is a suggestive juxtaposition. Any reader who read that article would think that it means that Wikipedia downgrading CNET is evidence that CNET is not reliable. Look at what the article CNET does not say. It does not say something like "Wikipedia is not a reliable source and what Wikipedia says is not itself any evidence that CNET is unreliable". For example, the Futurism article actually says things like "Wikipedia editors aren't the ultimate authority for what qualifies good journalism" but this kind of caveat is omitted from the article CNET, and it is very difficult to understand why Futurism do not say that Wikipedia is no authority at all. [The Wikipedia discussion in 2023 was based on articles published in Futurism and The Verge. If there was any "authority" it would appear on the face of it to be those articles in Futurism and The Verge, not Wikipedia.] If the two periodical articles are reliable sources for the content of "internal Wikipedia discussions", they might in theory be due weight for the article English Wikipedia, when placed in the context of all the sources that say that Wikipedia is user generated content, and which discuss the lack of quality control of that content, the lack of verification of the identity and credentials of the editors, the fact it is typically banned from use in university coursework, and etc etc etc, and which make it clear that Wikipedia's claims do not prove anything about CNET. [I have to question whether a Futurism article the gist of which is "Wikipedia endorsed something Futurism said" and "Wikipedia agrees with us" actually is due weight.] If, on the other hand, the two periodical articles are claiming (and I do not think they clearly are) that Wikipedia is reliable for CNET (as opposed to being accurate by chance or luck), they are proving that they do not understand, or that they do not want to understand, what Wikipedia actually is, and that they are not reliable for Wikipedia. One way or the other, reporting of "internal Wikipedia discussions" does not belong in the article CNET or any article on any other non-WMF publication. At the moment, we are using ourselves as a source for CNET, and the fact we are citing ourselves to Futurism and Ars Technica does not help. James500 (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this CNET example is citogenesis at all. Citogenesis is when "facts" not about Wikipedia are sourced, ultimately, to Wikipedia. I don't see any such claim in any version of CNET - the article does not say or imply, "CNET isn't reliable because it was discussed on RSN/RSP". Rather it says, "CNET was discussed on RSN, and its reliability for use on Wikipedia was downgraded at RSP as a result", which is (1) accurate and (2) DUE, because reliable sources off-Wikipedia say so.
After all the recent discussions of the Anti-Defamation League, on and off Wikipedia, the idea that Wikipedia discussions that are reported in RS should be excluded from articles on a subject because of "citogenesis" shows a woeful misunderstanding of what citogenesis means, and of the relationship between Wikipedia and broader culture. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles (on non-wiki topics), but that doesn't mean that the effects Wikipedia discussions have, once they are reported by independent sources, should be excluded from Wikipedia articles where these effects are relevant. Newimpartial (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I am going to withdraw from this discussion because I do not think the majority of the community is going to accept any opinion that I express, or evidence I advance, on this subject. If anyone wants further explanation or evidence from me, they can ask on my talk page, to avoid prolonging this thread. James500 (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The concern I have with the proposal is that WP:RSP simply collects and summarizes consensus about sources based on RfCs/discussions. Removing/deprecating that page simply makes it much more difficult for editors to locate prior consensus. (I think the issue of including WP's reliability determinations in mainspace articles when reported on by independent sources is a different issue that should be discussed separately.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Back when RSP was created, the intent was to have a quick reference guide that summarized prior discussions… and more importantly discussions on sources that had been discussed over and over (that’s the “perennial” part of RSP). The idea was that we wouldn’t have to keep repeating the same arguments over and over.
Sadly, it has grown beyond that original intent. It is now a white/black list of “good” and “bad” sources. We are far too quick to add sources to it.
Prior to the adoption of RSP, it was not at all uncommon for us to reject RFCs that broadly asked “is X reliable?”… we would usually respond by asking: “reliable for what?” We wanted to see the context in which the source was being used. What information was being verified by the source? How was that information phrased in the article? Back then, it seems we better understood the distinction between ‘’general reliability and specific situation reliability.
Now… we no longer ask these important questions. We jump right into !voting and adding the result to the list so we can “win” future debates. The list is being misused to shut down discussion and avoid a thoughtful examination of how a source is being used in a specific article. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
For rebuttal I point to the RFC directly above this one, and there have been many others that have ended in similar ways. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
No doubt RSN is currently running hotter than it should, and RSP is widely misinterpreted, but I think the proposal here throws the baby out with the bathwater. The principles we are trying to work to are sound: discuss reliability of a source in context, find consensus (with an RfC if necessary), and summarise that consensus for quick reference. This can be made to work - and it normally does!
What we need are fewer attempts to use RSN as a cudgel to shut out unpopular POVs, a better appreciation of the difference between bias and unreliability, and recognition that the context and purpose and specific nature of a citation is more important than the general guidance offered at RSP. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that articles should not make claims in unattributed wikivoice about overall reliability of a source in the world based solely or primarily on RSP or on news articles about our discussions here. But that’s not really what’s going on with CNET’s article. There is a decently long section about criticism, of which only two sentences are about the Wikipedia process. And those two sentences make clear it was a Wikipedia decision about what happens on Wikipedia, and are both reliably sourced (at the end) with a CNET response.
Of note here, Wikipedia has many articles/sections that cover our decisions. Being in the top 10 websites and being the highest ranking “general knowledge” website that’s not a search engine, it makes perfect sense that reliable sources will, for controversial or large discussions, cover our activities. And we aren’t supposed to just avoid things because they’re about us - we follow the sources, and if there are multiple reliable sources discussing one of our actions as it relates to an otherwise notable topic, then it would be due weight to cover what those reliable sources are saying about our actions. This case is even more nuanced though because it isn’t being covered by reliable sources as just a case of “Wikipedia editors call a source unreliable” - but that a source previously considered fine to use began creating massive amounts of AI generated content that resulted in Wikipedia taking action. The ultimate guidance on this comes from WP:SELFSOURCE. While often times there is a due weight question regarding covering our own actions, if the information is due weight, citing Wikipedia itself for further information (such as an exact date rather than a “month” as may be reported in media) would technically be permissible.
On a similar vein, that’s why we have things like List of Wikipedia controversies. Oftentimes those controversies are so well covered that, when the underlying real world subject of the issue has its own page, it is covered on that page: such as CNET, or Scots Wikipedia § Controversies. But in some cases such as this hoax and these edits by US Congress IPs, the coverage of Wikipedia is so in depth and wide in reliable sources that the topic of the Wikipedia action(s) or lack thereof become notable on their own.
There’s also the point brought up that these sources are “citogenesis”, which I’m going to assume is intended to mean “the source in question has taken its information from Wikipedia and thus the source isn’t reliable”. This is generally true - but with a caveat - sources that take information from article space in Wikipedia as their sole source of information should not then be used to cite for that information. However, to make the claim that “sources that reference Wikipedia internal discussions can’t be used as sources about those internal discussions” would basically mean we could never have any content on Wikipedia about Wikipedia at all - which is absurd. This is where WP:ABOUTSELF also comes into play - while Wikipedia articles aren’t reliable sources about their topics, internal discussions and actions on Wikipedia are basically the only “primary” source of information about those discussions/actions. So if we don’t allow reliable sources’ reporting on our discussion to be treated as reliable… how do we ever cover what they say about them? We wouldn’t be able to. But as I showed above, in many cases not only are our internal discussions covered in such depth that they are due weight to include, but in some cases the issue even becomes notable enough on its own for its own article.
Ultimately the discussion over whether the coverage of Wikipedia’s actions regarding reliability are due weight for any one article should occur on the talk page. In many cases, our RSP discussions don’t result in meaningful media coverage, or the coverage thereof isn’t analytical in nature but just reporting on what “we” did. In those cases, it may be determined not to be due weight. But none of this is grounds for stopping us from maintaining discussions on sourcing for our internal use. An end note - I have some time so I’m going to hop on my laptop and look through other “big controversy regarding WP deciding a source is unreliable” to compare coverage and post results here hopefully in half an hour or so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Berchanhimez (talk • contribs) 16:06, June 23, 2024 (UTC)
This is why I hate mobile editing and reply feature sometimes. It didn't sign my big comment above and I just noticed it. Templated myself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Disagree: There is no rule on Wikipedia that states that a source has to be entirely vetted by WP:RSP. And folks clearly will still put in their own source from whereever regardless of the list here. We also should not let false media coverage from folks who misunderstand our policies from being afraid to write wikipedia articles in good standing. I doubt the ADL "ban" will stop folks from including it as a source on WP:ARBPIA content in the future. And we should still include it, along with attribution for outstanding claims that other MSM doesn't corroborate, same as Al Jazeera, the other perennial source on this noticeboard. Removing this forum for whether a source is good or not simply will move the discussion elsewhere. And some news site will still find some clickbaity thing about Wikipedia to make outrage headlines about.
User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • This is a profoundly unserious suggestion (and suggesting that RSP list itself as unreliable is unserious to the point of being WP:POINT-y.) RSP merely documents consensuses reached on this page; it is not itself a policy page and cannot be marked as historical without marking RSN itself as historical. What you want, I assume, is to halt RFCs on the reliability of individual sources and to blanket-overturn the consensus reached on every one that has occurred to date, but that is also unserious - plainly such RFCs have support given the consensuses they continue to reach, nor are you going to reverse eg. the massive RFCs on the Daily Mail or Fox News without an RFC that has similar attendance. But more to the point, RSN and RSP are working; they've largely been successful at maintaining and improving the quality of sourcing we use in articles. See eg. [36][37][38]. As a practical matter a lot of improving sources involves telling people why they generally can't use WND or the Daily Wire or the Daily Caller or Occupy Democrats or whatever as a source; and RSP has been extremely successful at providing an easier way to do this, especially when people try to argue that they're not unreliable. There are recurring sources where we actually need a quick and easy way to point to an established consensus on their general reliability. The "citogenesis" concern also misunderstands what citogenesis is. When a secondary source reports on Wikipedia - when they use Wikipedia as a source to describe events or discussions that occurred on Wikipedia - we can and should use them to cover that (assuming it's WP:DUE.) That's how secondary sources work; they report on things that happened in sources we couldn't cite ourselves for WP:OR reasons. A news source saying "Wikipedia judged source X to be unreliable" isn't citogenesis, it's just normal reporting. --Aquillion (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    This proposal has already been withdrawn, and I would be grateful if you would refrain from putting words into my mouth, and twisting my words, because I did not say any of things that you are claiming that I said. James500 (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Evaluation of WP articles that discuss RSP determinations

I'm going down the list in alphabetical order and just going to the WP articles for some pages that have had, in my recollection, significant coverage in reliable sources:

  • Anti-Defamation League § Wikipedia determination of unreliability - has sources to multiple (half a dozen) news articles that reported on the Wikipedia discussion beyond just "they said it's unreliable". Also has reactions from both the ADL itself as well as at least one prominent academic who discussed the determination and what it's impact may/should be on other entities (news organizations themselves, governments, the public, etc) who look to ADL information for various purposes. My first glance is that it appears to be about the "perfect" amount of coverage for due weight purposes in that article.
  • Daily Mail § Reliability - contains a two paragraph summary of reactions to Wikipedia's RfC on the issue, with at least half a dozen news articles specifically about the discussion cited. Also contains one example of criticism of the RfC outcome, as well as commentary by Mr. Wales himself about the discussion.
  • The Epoch Times § Assessments - one sentence regarding the discussion/outcome, cited to a reliable secondary source (Haaretz), and presumably due weight to even add more given the comparisons made in that news article between Wikipedia's response to the issues versus other social media/news/etc.
  • Fox News § Ratings and Reception - one sentence about the first discussion, cited to Slate. Followed by a later paragraph about the 2020 discussion that led to the topic-area restrictions, with two citations, and a third paragraph even later cited to Slate about the exact wording and deliberations of "how reliable are they". Ultimately this section could likely be split out, as I count at least 4 citations present already, and I suspect there's likely to be many more discussing their reliability on Wikipedia specifically that could make a "timeline of everything" section as it is now unweildy.
  • HuffPost - though I'd have expected there to be quite a significant amount of coverage in other news regarding the decisions made on HuffPost, there isn't any I could find with a quick search - and the article doesn't mention them at all for that reason (lack of citations available) thus meaning it wouldn't be due weight and certainly shouldn't be shoehorned in by self-citing the RfCs on Wikipedia.
  • National Enquirer - same thing as HuffPost - no coverage I can find in secondary sources, presumably because it's a tabloid and those are well known to be "less than reliable" at absolute best. Pretty much every tabloid listed on RSP is the same.
  • New York Post § Content, coverage and criticism - one sentence in this section cited to, oddly enough, a news article about the ADL discussion. They occurred relatively close temporally, so it makes sense, but I question if it is due weight to include in the NYP article if the only discussion/significant coverage is in articles about our other discussions. Something to raise on the NYP talk page if anyone wants - perhaps more citations can be found to justify its inclusion or even expansion, or it should likely be removed for due weight.
  • Newsmax § Reception - one sentence, similar to NYP above, but it has two citations to separate articles, again both are primarily about the ADL discussion however from first glance.
  • One America News Network § Reception - one sentence cited to an article regarding Wikipedia being "more effective" than social media at combatting disinformation. Probably due weight as it is now, but I wonder if more sources could be found - and the article has a tag right now about POV/due issues in the criticism covered in it.
  • RT (TV network) § Propaganda and related issues - one sentence cited to Slate - due weight in my opinion due to it being used as an example of the source's reliability being called into question and is balanced by other examples.

Ultimately, I think this should show that when reliable sources discuss our discussions in depth, we tend to cover their response to our discussions. Any editor should feel free to add to the list here if more examples would be helpful that I missed (especially of times we don't cover it), and anyone should feel free to use this as a starting point to discuss individual cases on their articles' talk page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if this should be discussed on the main noticeboard here (as it's not really about citing RSP as a reliable source, but how we cover RSP in our articles) - I'm not sure if the better place is RSP's talk page or another place, but if any other editor thinks there's a need to have a longer discussion regarding "the weight to assign to our determinations of reliability when those determinations are covered in reliable secondary sources" I'm happy for my analysis to be moved as a starting point for such a discussion (whether by copying it or moving it completely) if it helps. I think such a discussion would be good to have just to ensure that there's a consensus on when these "one sentence blips" are permissible or not, when significant coverage (over one sentence) should be given, how to treat analysis of our decision in the coverage, etc. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
The Anti-Defamation_League#Wikipedia_determination_of_unreliability is in my opinion currently way out of WP:PROPORTION, but this is not unexpected per current media coverage and probably many Wikipedians find the subject (WP on ADL) interesting and worthy of attention. I do, but consider it not that much of a ADL WP-article issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the size of that section (three large paragraphs constituting a whole section of the article) seems out of proportion, as you say. I'd like to think that it's only due to RECENTISM and like with "international reaction" sections that balloon up in the immediate aftermath of various events, will be possible to revise to a more DUE size some time later when the news cycle has moved on and things have cooled down. -sche (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:NAVELGAZING is an essay, but I think we have some of that there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Re New York Post § Content, coverage and criticism - That sentence is In 2024, the Wikipedia community reached a consensus that the Post should not be used as a source, especially with regard to politics. which is false -- in 2024 RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six) was against a ban, was archived without formal close or effect on WP:RSP's "summary". But as I commented on the New York Post talk page, the falsehood is sourced (to Haaretz), so it stays. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I know I've seen an older discussion on something similar, it was a news-article that reported that arbcom had decided something, though the case was still ongoing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
JTA. not Haaretz, I think. Author may have misread the year, meaning Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_312#RFC:_New_York_Post_(nypost.com). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, Jewish Telegraphic Agency. But we don't know what the author misread. I only know what happened in the year that the author refers to. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Book prologue

Usually, when a book is re-published several years after first publication, there is a recent prologue by a modern author that explains the book's editorial history. If the notability of the book is already established elsewhere, can such a prologue be used as a source on an article about the book?

I mean, that prologue is in the book itself, but it's not part of the original book, and whoever wrote it writes it from and distant and uninvolved point of view. Cambalachero (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Yes. An introduction is acceptable as a source. For example, the introduction to the novel "Dracula" (1896) in the Oxford "World's Classics" edition, which was written by A N Wilson in 1983, would be an acceptable source for the 1896 novel by Bram Stoker. James500 (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of scientific dictionaries

My apology if this has already been asked and answered, I could not find it. I will try and phrase this question in a general way, keeping it short (maybe too short).

Are scientific dictionaries considered to be reliable (e.g. tertiary) sources?
  • The use of OED, for instance as an entymology source is I believe considered reliable, so can and often is used for this in WP articles.
  • The Elsevier ScienceDirect collections of papers is viewed as unreliable. I am not sure why, perhaps because it is uncurated.
  • What about OED, Britannica, Oxford Dictionary of Physics (& similar Chemistry, Biology...) when it comes to the scientific meaning of terms? Tertiary, or closer to primary as their curation is unclear.

Ldm1954 (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If you mean ScienceDirect Topics, there's an explanation at WP:RSP. Scientific dictionaries in general are tertiary sources and there's no real way to answer your question without knowing the context. Is there a specific situation where someone is using a scientific dictionary as a source that you're wondering about? This essay could be helpful. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, very helpful. It is a messy one against the world where the "1" (not me) is using science dictionaries and high-schools texts to support his case. The essay is very useful, question answered. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Minor addendum: I think it would be useful to have tertiary source tags for article maintenance; there are primary/secondary but I have never seen tertiary. I can think of cases where these would be relevant, for instance in AfC & NPP. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Imore

Is it reliable? (Specifically relating to games) AlexBobCharles (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean this website? https://www.imore.com/ What do you want to cite it for? Ca talk to me! 15:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Catholic Register RS for Canadian budget?

Is the Catholic Register RS for this edit?[39] Elinruby (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Instagram and Facebook

Are Instagram and Facebook on the 150th Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine) page a reliable source? Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Are the accounts authentic and what is the content? WP:SOCIALMEDIA otherwise covers this. CNC (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Mgfdhsrhe, Not at all. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
So would it be right to remove them? Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
But via WP:SOCIALMEDIA it is a statement about themself, so you can use it, right? Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
It depends what the claim is, and whether the accounts are authentic. CNC (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
CommunityNotesContributor, I don't recall if we're permitted to use social media platforms as references, even when the accounts are verified. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Generally we are not. I don't see the reason for this continual quest for the lowest common denominator sources. Its primary. Look for something better. scope_creepTalk 08:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Because as always, context matters. Primary sources can sometimes be the best possible source for certain content. Don't know where you got the idea of "lowest common denominator" from. CNC (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Context does matter but there is no good reason to use social media references, unless its the product itself that the article is detailing. For all sorts of reasons , they cause knock on effects that wastes 10's of thousands of editing hours every single week in article review, countless millions of hours have been wasted already because there is so much ambiguity. Mainly because folk can't tell the difference, If you add social media reference, then your reducing the quality of your article and the long term viability of your article in particular. They are canker on the face of wikipedia and no good to man nor beast. The simple solution is to find something better. scope_creepTalk 17:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
It is also worth pointing out that although the Russians and Ukrainians are fighting a physical war, they also fighting an information war, both on and off social media. So can't trust anything they say on social media. scope_creepTalk 17:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Judith Reisman

This is about [40]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's needed, to be honest. The fact that the ADL have condemned what was an obviously batshit theory which would be found ridiculous by anyone with more than one functioning brain cell doesn't really add anything. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I was worried this might be a case of someone removing the ADL due to misinterpreting the recent RFC (AFAICT the text in question has nothing to do with I/P), but in fact the edit summary says it was removed for being a primary source, a sentence in Wikipedia saying "the ADL said X" sourced only to the ADL, which makes me think this is a WEIGHT issue rather than a reliability issue. Have other sources covered and given weight to the ADL's statement? Then cite those sources. Has only the ADL covered the ADL's statement? Then it's probably not really necessary, as Black Kite says. -sche (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Social media analytic websites (e.g. Social Blade)


What is the reliability of social media analytic websites such as Social Blade, Viewstats, and NoxInfluencer for verifying an online influencer's statistics? (Prior discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 441#Reliability of social media analytic websites)

— lunaeclipse (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 For anything that can't be verified by the primary sources ('estimated revenue', 'views over time', 'subscription rate changes', or any kind of ranking) they shouldn't be considered reliable. This type of data is of value to the social media site (YouTube, Twitch, etc) and they wouldn't give it away, so third parties doing so should be considered cautiously. For anything else there is no reason not to use the primary sources, as they are likely to have more up too date and accurate information. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Option 3 - I'm unconvinced that the methods are transparent enough to take these numbers seriously, nor am I convinced that our reliable sources are relying on these data. Opaque data sites should be guilty until proven innocent. I don't think they should be deprecated either; I believe there are exceptions and fringe cases where it does make sense to use them, but I'm just not confident that it's wide enough go for the next tier up.
CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Option 3 but leaning Option 2. These sites don't have the reputation the Alexa Internet did, but I have no reason to doubt they're making stuff up. Without any sort of discussion or critical review of their methods, I can't accept their rankings as the benchmark Alexa was. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Option 3 also leaning Option 2. The bottom line for me is that there is no history of regular fact checking. Without a clear history on data accumulation, it doesn't seem right to qualify as reliable. Penguino35 (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Option 2, but why would such services be cited? These sites methodology for calculating "grades" or "estimated earnings" are not transparent enough to be reliable. If those rankings are not duplicated in any other reliable sources, it carries WP:DUE concerns as well. But I do not see how it can be unreliable for basic things like total views. However, in many cases, you can just cite the social media account itself. Ca talk to me! 14:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Option 4 and this whole deprecation system (or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC "Option 4" deprecation (or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is) should only be proposed as part of an RfC with a very good reason, it should not be a standard option on an RfC at this noticeboard. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Socialblade is a high-quality source for historical statistics. They are not "making stuff up". I've never heard of Viewstats or Noxinfluencer before, but they probably are fine. I can't think of any other reason than "view or subscription count at a date or over time" for them to be used. SWinxy (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Credibility of The Baltimore Sun post-2024 could be compromised

...according to this June 21 story by Techdirt's Karl Bode.

"Sinclair executive Chairman David Smith recently purchased what’s left of the Baltimore Sun (much to the chagrin of ex-staffer David Simon), and it’s going just about as you’d expect. It’s only been a few months, but staffers there are already becoming angry about the fact that the paper is now publishing anti-immigrant and anti-trans right wing propaganda dressed up as serious news and analysis.

"A statement by the Baltimore Sun Guild says the paper’s 'ethical standards have been tossed aside under new ownership,' and points to a May editorial by new Sun co-owner Armstrong Williams that called the transgender movement a 'cancer'."

Perhaps we should make a note of this development at WP:RSP soon? (I strongly feel this mostly applies to the opinion/editorial pieces from this once-long-revered institution.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION would already cover opinion/editorial pieces, and WP:RSBIAS doesn't immediately make a source unreliable. Saying immigration is bad is bias, saying that immigrants are flying in on wings made by satanists would make them unreliable. These do look like concerning developments, but actual instances of unreliable reporting are needed.
What's the relationship between 'FOX 45' and Fox News? If they are simply reposting the Fox News reports then WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS would seem appropriate for those articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
FOX 45 (WBFF) is an affiliate of Fox Broadcasting Company, which is separate from Fox News. The issue noted in the article is that it is owned by Sinclair, whose stations have been noted for having a conservative slant regardless of what network the stations are affiliated to (CBS, Fox, etc.). AFAIK there's been no consensus formed about whether the reliability of Sinclair stations differs from other local news stations. Pinguinn 🐧 09:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Western Standard as a source for Canadian residential schools

Does westernstandard.news seem like a good source for residential schools in Canada? I have my own opinion but I would prefer to hear yours. The sentence is: In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation.[1] Elinruby (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This was at Kamloops Indian Residential School. I removed it because the allocation was already mentioned and cited and it did not seem notable to me that the band had no particular comment. As mentioned elsewhere, there are literally hundreds of RS and at least dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles that discuss these findings. Elinruby (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I just discovered the following on the talk page: [41] Riposte97 may wish to comment. Since I removed the material today, apparently this discussion was ignored, despite the suggestion from FJ that dispute resolution might be appropriate. Elinruby (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)@Fluorescent Jellyfish:Elinruby (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

As someone with no connection to Canada except as an occasional visitor and only a vague outsider's understanding of the problems with the residential schools and Canadian treatment of First Nations more generally, after comparison with our article, the linked newspaper article comes off as a dishonest hit piece, attempting to cast the fact that a project of this size typically takes some time to get going as if it were a scam merely because they were allocated money, haven't produced immediate results, and won't talk to the hit-piece-writers. Your talk page link confirms a likely bias. I don't know about the newspaper's reliability in general but I think we should avoid using this source; I'm sure better sources can be found for this material. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
It's being used for the bare claim that no bodies have yet been found. The allocation need not be used if there are NPOV concerns. However, it's an essential fact that no bodies have been confirmed through exhumation, as the core claim relies on this work being done. Merely pointing out that this has not yet occurred does not a 'hit piece' make. Riposte97 (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
It is also the case that no zambonis. leprechauns. icebergs or obelisks have been found. Why are we beating the dead horse of something not having been found yet? Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
It is not the facts in the story that make it a hit piece, but the way those facts are cherry-picked and carefully ordered to cause readers to draw an inference. If we did the same thing in a Wikipedia article it would be a violation of WP:SYN. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I have no connection with Canada other than I've visited annually for most of my life. However, I have researched residential schools in the US and Canada quite extensively. The reliability of this source should be questioned. I agree with David. This piece seems to be written to delegitimize the claim because of the absence of evidence while the scene is still being investigated. If they had simply stated "no bodies have been recovered, at this point, but evidence is still being gathered" that would be an accurate statement but that would also not generate as many clicks. There is an obvious bias here but the bias isn't the issue. It is in what they wrote and how they wrote it. Because of this I would say we shouldn't use this source for this subject material. I would need to evaluate their reporting on other subjects to judge their reliability in those instances. --ARoseWolf 12:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Not familiar with this source, but it appears to be a website/online publication, so out of principle I would prefer an actual newspaper like The Catholic Register, which can be used to source the same claim: No accounting for burial sites’ funding. Astaire (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems The Catholic Register here has news on the issue that can be used as citations instead of Western Standard. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
This noticeboard is for discussion of reliability of sources. Not for workshopping edits to articles. You should take your suggestion up in the relevant article's talk. TarnishedPathtalk 12:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I've never been to Canada (and I'm not sure why we're all announcing whether we have or not), and in any case I'm inclined to agree with ARoseWolf and David Eppstein that this Western Standard piece and its citation to support the sentence OP pointed out is not a WP:BESTSOURCE and seems quite skewed and undependable. As David Eppstein phrases, Western Standard seems to be attempting to cast the fact that a project of this size typically takes some time to get going as if it were a scam merely because they were allocated money [and] haven't produced immediate results. I agree with not using this source for this subject material. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
It's relevant in that we have some really egregious errors of fact going on and we are discussing what is in fact conventional wisdom in Canada. One of my passports is Canadian. I lived elsewhere most of my life but moved four years ago to a remote village in British Columbia. I attended an indigenous ceremony for children who died in Kamloops. There is in fact a very vibrant local journalism scene, both online and print usually, and this was extensively covered by all of them. All of them are RS; see for example the Hope Standard [42] (print), Prince George Citizen [43] (print), Chilliwack Progress [44] (print) and CFJC [45] (TV). And then of course given the subsequent announcements all over Canada, all of the big papers in Vancouver, Toronto, New York and DC covered the story and at this point the journal articles have proliferated: I have cited settler studies, medical, indigenous and Canadian history journals as well as historical writings in this topic area. Kamloops is a day's drive away. I edited all of the associated Wikipedia articles extensively at the time. We flew our town flag lowered for over two years here. Depending on where I sit in my house Google sometimes reports my location as a reserve. Most of the people I know are indigenous to some degree, but the definitions for that are fraught; let's just say the local indigenous community is extensive, close-knit and ancient. They have always been here. I myself am not indigenous, btw; I am uncomfortable speaking for those who are, but nobody else seems to be doing it in this case and somebody somewhere has for two years been getting their jollies by inciting people to show up at the burial site in Kamloops with shovels to "prove" that there are, as they believe, no bodies. I can cite those arrests. I don't see why we have to amplify these... struggling to find the right words for Wikipedia... shall we say very poorly sourced and very harmful claims. Elinruby (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I completely second (and appreciate) your statements, as well as the depth of feeling behind them. I'm also in BC. And as I've mentioned elsewhere, I have IRL done academi and research, etc., about the Canadian far right, and indeed Canadian white supremacy. It's interlinked, insidious, horrendous, and it was deeply upsetting to see these far-right, racist, disinformation-spreading publications used as sources on Wikipedia, on a topic of *such* importance. Wikipedia is where so many people get their info, and it's where so many people also find further reading, for that matter. It's shameful to add legitimacy to these disreputable sources, and thus aid in the spread of racist conspiracies.
And it's so heartening to see multiple people upset about it, too
This article, especially, is deeply, deeply important. I don't know if people outside of Canada would be able to grasp how very much care must be taken with it. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think they do. One of these three sources became the #1 Google hit for residential school gravesites after the last rewrite. I noted that at Wikiproject Canada at the time. That was new. People were already trying to dig up burial sites. Go team Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I just checked and it was the Fraser Institute, actually, another such source, and this morning Wikipedia has it by a nose. Except that its article too implies that there are no bodies in the suspected graves. Elinruby (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
The Fraser Institute is unfortunately another of the far-right publication milieu in Canada, though framed as a think tank. It's very unfortunate because in previous, well, decades, the Fraser Institute was pretty conservative but not fully conspiratorial. These days? Quite fully conspiratorial, and shares authors/members with various far-right publications.
It's very unfortunate.
The far-right 'alternative media' miasma in Canada is very depressing. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Don't use it. The WS does not have a reputation for reliability, nor does it have the trappings of a reliable source. I have traveled to Canada. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
As someone who aspires one day to visit Canada, I just wanted to add that bias =/= a reason to exclude a source, especially for factual claims. There is nothing to suggest that WS isn't reliable. We may need an RfC to resolve the question definitively. Riposte97 (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
It's a laughable source. It got something as basic as the right pronoun for their subject matter expert wrong. Nobody named Jacques is ever a she. Elinruby (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I think you may be confusing the Western Standard with Times Now. Riposte97 (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't have time for another round of this. The source that you used in the article. I clicked the footnote link. I read the article several times then went to the About page. Also I don't understand the piping in that wl. You are piping a link to this section of this page to "Times Now" for some reason. Why? Elinruby (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I provided extensive evidence that Western Standard is unreliable, in my original responses to Riposte97's refusal to allow my edit. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for posting this and starting this discussion here!
As mentioned by @Elinruby@Elinruby I wrote an extensive reply providing evidence that Western Standard is not a reliable sorcery (after my original edits were reverted by Riposte97).
To quote myself (hopefully that's all right):
In real life I research disinformation, misinformation, and the Canadian far-right. I'm familiar with the Western Standard from my work. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I thought you were quite eloquent and it's a shame you were ignored. He has since doubled down on claiming that it is a reliable source and yesterday demanded that I restore it. He also mischaracterized my editing, but this is not the venue for going into that. Point is, he claimed I had done something wrong and demanded I restore this material, whose purpose does not appear to be encyclopedic. See the section titled "removal of content" at Kamloops Indian Residential School. And thank you for speaking up. This has been ongoing since the underground radar findings were announced. Elinruby (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby To be absolutely clear, I did not demand you restore the material. Please strike that claim. Riposte97 (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Sure. It's a reliable source too. You are bluffing that no one will go read the page. I would say "heavily suggested in a bullying manner while suggesting that I was... something." I think that is pretty synonymous. Elinruby (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
It is I who first cited Western Standard in that page whose news article circulated around the Globe through other established news outlets quoting WS including news outlets from India.
one of your @Elinruby reply to @Riposte97 at talk page of Kamloops Indian Residential School under the section removal of content yes. RSN isn't going to go in your favor.
A handful of people under this notice board deciding for entire Wikipedia which has millions of articles generated from every corner of Earth, which sources are reliable which sources are not to be used in Wikipedia in a matter of time is injustice to the level that when I checked the Wikipedia list of reliable sources, all the news media outlets that has news which seemed to be right wing or conservative is silenced in Wikipedia, possibly through discussions like this involving a few people with same set of bias mind set. It is to the point I have read some comments that implies even if no bodies are uncovered because the First nation community decides so out of their community's sensitivity, the mass grave reports equates to be a fact and not to be questioned, like it would result blasphemy. It is not how provisional truth and investigation works. If there are bodies there needs to be a solid proof, narratives on ground disturbances, missing records, are not solid proofs until the supposed graves are uncovered with bodies of children with archeological data, whether the first nation like it or not. Here the Western Standard themselves claim they have tried to contact the first nation community but they declined, also says about a Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirming the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. Spokesperson's response and first nation community's decline is a news is reliable unless proven wrong. Until then the news has to stay.
Silencing a section of medias does no good to Wikipedia in long. As the world is for everyone to exist, Wikipedia do also need to represent views of every wing and sides sans silencing them. Or else in long run it will result in exclusive use of Wikipedia as a platform for one sided narratives, and eventually the increasing global distrust in mass media will also get translated to Wikipedia making it obsolete. What value does a shadow has if there is no light? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I can't agree more: it is truly shameful that The Onion, Weekly World News, China Global Television Network, Bentham Science Publishers, and Infowars are not allowable as sources. How can Wikipedia possibly highlight the fullness of human knowledge if we do not allow our readers access to read articles based on fraud, spam, propaganda, nonsense, and conspiricizing? --JBL (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
You've not given any sensible argument for why the source is reliable. TarnishedPathtalk 02:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
We silence sections of medias and various types of "speech" all the time. We do not allow vandalism of Wikipedia do we? If Western Standard was honest about their reporting and their personal position in this matter they would do us all a favor and we wouldn't even be having this discussion because there would be no doubt they were unreliable. However, as with many organizations, they would rather somewhat ride the fence of telling us what they really think and trying to avoid potential litigation. --ARoseWolf 12:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with @Elinruby that this particular sentence doesn't seem to add much to the article (considering that the allocation is already mentioned) but I'm not sure it's a reliability issues. Do you believe that any part of this sentence is false? Are there other sources contradicting it? Alaexis¿question? 07:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure what to call it, but that source is definitely not reliable. The editing looks like some sort of SEO if you ask me, but I can't prove it because I don't have the tools to prove it. That wording goes with a wave of news coverage about the early use of the word "mass grave", a mistake made in some early news reports, as proof of something or other. (These would be individual graves). It's like when people start talking about pizza parlours.
Let's make this easy. I just saw a CBC source that says no decision had been reached about excavation. But look, when you dig into it a lot of bodies have been found. They were washing into the river after a flood at a school out on the prairies somewhere, and one band did the underground radar specifically to avoid its contractors digging up bodies when they did utility maintenance or whatever. Because that had been a recurring problem. We also know that a lot of children are unaccounted for. The don't know where the children are buried, that is the point. And why they are looking.Elinruby (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Like Firefangledfeathers, I'm not finding evidence that they have any reputation for fact-checking or reliability, nor that they are used by other reliable sources (as opposed to the occasional random blog); indeed, the only cases I've found where RS mention Western Standard are cases where RS mention that Western Standard published something with so many errors that they had to retract it ([46], [47], [48]). The specific WS article in question seems designed to mislead, as David Eppstein laid out, which is also a bad sign. On a balance, and pending more information being presented, WS does not seem reliable. Elinruby said above that there are many much better sources covering this topic, which seems likely, so there does not seem to be any reason to try to use WS. -sche (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Services, Western Standard News (2024-05-09). "No bodies found after spending $8 million searching for bodies at Kamloops Residential School". Western Standard. Retrieved 2024-06-03.

Suggested additions

Suggested additions to reliable source list

MWQs (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless someone is disputing it, there is a presumption of reliability for well known newsorgs. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
@MWQs, the perennial sources list isn't a "reliable sources list". It just captures community consensus for sources that have been repeatedly questioned/discussed. Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
As Schazjmd said, generally we don’t add things without there having been a discussion. RSP isn’t a complete list of RS, but an index and summary of previous discussions.
In the case of France24, they are generally reliable but I did recently read a pro-Azerbaijan spin piece from them. No one’s perfect.
Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I did recently read a pro-Azerbaijan spin piece from them. No one’s perfect.
You're making it sound like that is a bad thing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is the place to open a topic with a list of discussions (based on WP:RSPCRITERIA) if you want sources to be considered for inclusion. From a brief search, it doesn't seem like these sources have had multiple significant discussions based on their reliability however (when excluding citations, references and unrelated discussions). CNC (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

LA Weekly guest-author?

Specifically the one added here[49].

Per https://www.laweekly.com/guest-author/written_in_partnership_with_lauren_carpenter/page/1/ this is a "guest-author". Is this BLP-good or is it some sort of paid content? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It's self-evidently a sponsored piece, so that piece is not reliable. But I sure do wish this were more obvious to the reader at first glance. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, it did look like a puff-piece. though more discreet than some I've seen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
It says "written in partnership" - it's not crystal clear that it's sponsored? MaskedSinger (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd say tone and her other articles indicates it, @Red-tailed hawk, did you see anything else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
At the bottom of the piece it says Advertising disclosure: We may receive compensation for some of the links in our stories. Thank you for supporting LA Weekly and our advertisers. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but I think all their articles have that:[50] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
There was another discussion back in 2022 that encountered this sort of source. The guest author, combined with the "written in partnership with" or "written in collaboration with" seems to be indicative of this sort of thing.
It doesn't appear that all items under the /guest-author folder are sponsored. I've looked through the uses of urls that point to such articles on Wikipedia (there are 4), and the uses includes author pages of authors who formerly worked for the magazine. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the other "written in partnership with" at https://www.laweekly.com/guest-author/, it seems fairly clear that yes, these are works for hire. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

ProPakistani.pk, again

Back in March, we had a brief discussion whether this blog ProPakistani.pk qualifies as a RS but due to limited participation, no conclusive outcome was reached. But since then, I've noticed this source being cited in multiple WP: AFDs where IPs and UPE sock farms argue to keep articles based on ProPakistani's coverage of the subject. So @CNMall41: suggested here that I bring this up again at WP:RSN so that we can decide once and for all whether to green light this as an acceptable source or not. One can review my previous arguments against using ProPakistani but additionally, I'd like to highlight that a in an interview, a PR agency owner indicated that ProPakistani accepts press releases as part of their content strategy so this raises concerns especially when someone argues to keep a WP article based on coverage from ProPakistani. And when it comes to the reliability of content, ProPakistani fails in that regard as well. For example, a credible Pakistan-based fact-checking portal has refuted several news stories published by ProPakistani. @S0091: Appreciate your views! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking through some fact-checking you link below, they are not solely about ProPakistani.pk as they call out several organizations for the same errors and some of them are based on social media posts which I don't count because all news orgs social media posts are based on a breaking/quick news bits and are often wrong. Them accepting press releases is not a red flag either. Most news orgs publish press releases in some form or fashion. Looking at their org, they do not have a Editor-in-chief but a "Chief Content Officer" (and of course a Chief Sales Officer) which is troublesome. They do have staff titled as editors. Looking at a job posting for a news editor, the job description does contain fact-checking but it does not appear they need have a degree or background in journalism. It just says they need experience but not what kind or how much. They also describe themselves as blog. Without specific examples, it hard for say other than I think additional caution is needed above the standard. S0091 (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442&oldid=1232430240"