Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289

Can't be used due to Arbitration Committee decision. Remove immediately and inform the editor of

arbitration enforcement action." If the editor(s) restore the material using that reference, I would file a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. FDW777 (talk

) 22:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• As a side note, the other editor's reinstatement of the content wasn't following proper
  WP:AN3 if they continued to reinstate it without first obtaining a consensus on the talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk
  22:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, FDW777, Rosguill, thanks for the speedy reply. NB will be referring to this discussion on the Talk page, for informational purposes. I appreciate the point about being now justified in reverting the revert, but have now been told you may disagree with the movie's conclusion but you cannot claim that it says something else without bringing sources to support your claim.[13] So given this is getting personal I'd rather pull that punch and have short community input from you guys as a longer-lasting, constructive solution.

To conclude this efficiently and not to bother you here again, would also appreciate your comment on the knock-on effect of your advised removal of the citation. Because it will leave two other citations, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8668248/ and https://vimeo.com/104504131. Another editor on the Talk page has already pointed out

1) Would you extend the same rationale to texts at Vimeo as not

Phew, hopefully that comprehensively covers everything so that this will be resolved immediately.

Thanks again, -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"Two Barns - English Version" was uploaded to

user-generated. ​— Newslinger talk

06:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

In the Article Talk page the OP repeatedly claims that the documentary actually says something else than what is quoted in those sources without providing any sources for his claim except for his own analysis of the movie, which basically represents original research. Moreover he also appears to conflate between a description of the docu which should be straightforward and his own critique of its conclusion which could be discussed after presenting what the documentary actually says.

In any event, the discussion on israelunwired reliability is moot since I just found out that the documentary was broadcast several times on mainstream TV stations including the 2014 premiere on the largest commercial TV station in Israel (Channel Two / Keshet/Mako) and I found several other sources (news portals/newspapers) which mention it which can be used as references. Please also bear in mind that generally it's difficult to find sources for documentaries as opposed to theatrical releases and book releases. And since there was a question of the filmmaker's reputation, he is a known TV entity (including a Wiki article) and has a long list of programs under his name on that TV station as mentioned in the Article's Talk page N1of2 (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If Chumchum7 challenges content in the article that you want to keep, it is your responsibility to prove that the content is fully supported by reliable sources. Any editor may remove the content if you are unable to show this. — Newslinger talk

13:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm in the process of working in the new sources as references... N1of2 (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• I stand by my prior view that this site can only be used to prove the existence of the documentary, and maybe reception or such if it hosts reviews. But if it is indeed a blog and not a reliable portal as I assumed at first, then it is not
  WP:RS for reception either, IMHO. And frankly not good much for anything. Blogs are low quality, after all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}
  12:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Are census records reliable in the context they are used on Annie MacDonald Langstaff? See Talk:Annie MacDonald Langstaff/GA1. My initial concern was:

• are census records reliable? see
  WP:PRIMARYCARE, which states that "Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index
  , and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name." I'd think the census falls in that category.

The response by SusunW (below) convinces me, but I'd appreciate it if someone with more experience in this aspect would chime in

Just as it may be difficult to determine if a subject in a newspaper article, journal article or book is the subject? One weighs the evidence, evaluates it based on what else is known — hardly "impossible" (in fact, I would postulate that that statement in the guideline is completely false. It may be impossible would be more accurate). The McGill Law Library says she was "born in 1887 in Alexandria, Glengarry County, Ontario" and Bergeron says "Née en Ontario le 6 juin 1887, elle épouse Samuel Gilbert Langstaff en 1904". There are precisely two births in that place in 1887, except the other one died at birth. The one who did not die, was born on 6 June. The record given shows the parents names. The Law Library article says she graduated from Prescott (Ontario) High School and the The Windsor Star 1914 says she was a native of Prescott and married at 17. Searching Prescott residence for 1887-1904, only one entry is returned and that person is the same age and has the same parents as were listed in the birth record from Alexandria. There is only 1 Annie MacDonald who married in Prescott in 1904. Per the marriage record, she was 17 and had the same parents as listed in the birth record. She also married Gilbert Samuel Langstaff, her later surname and the spouse's name contains all the names given by Bergeron. I think you see that each of the records confirms the information in the previous record. No conclusions are required, no original research. The records say what they say and it all works together to confirm each record refers to the same person. So yes, I think the records are reliable, based on an evaluation of their totality. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR. Guy (help!

) 15:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Use with caution, but I think in this case it's reasonable to conclude they refer to the same person. buidhe 02:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

NO, it is never reasonable to infer anything.

wp:or to infer it.Slatersteven (talk

) 13:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand the question Slatersteven no one is inferring anything. The information in the record was used, as it was stated in the record. No OR, no conclusions were drawn. The question was could the record be used as a reliable source? By looking at all the other evidence, the information in the source is supported, and thus in context, is deemed reliable. SusunW (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say still no. If there is reliable sources that supported the statement use those. But if it is a case of X says Y and Z says A and W says Y and A then Xis that is

wp:synthesis.Slatersteven (talk

) 14:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no synthesis either. The census lists the subject's family members. That is not given in any other source. The question refers to whether it is likely that the information is indeed for her family, since the guideline states "it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name." I said it was not impossible to confirm that the information was referring to the notable person, given all the information that was known. In every single instance of gathering sources for an article, one must look at them and evaluate whether they refer to the same person and whether the information is likely to be true. It doesn't matter if the source is a census, or a news article, or a scientific journal. If one is talking about apples and the other oranges, then they cannot be used to draw conclusions and infer they refer to the same thing. On the other hand, if 5 sources give information that is similar and one can logically see that they are all for the same topic, it is likely the information they contain is accurate (or they are all repeating the same mistake) and can be stated in the article as the information is represented in the source. SusunW (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

If its not given in any other source how do you know its them? You do not, thus it is an assumption, thus it is

wp:or. You might have come to that conclusion, someone else might not.Slatersteven (talk

) 14:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

In any article, one uses multiple sources. Some information in those sources is the same and some information in the sources is different. If one can logically evaluate the sources and weigh whether they are all about the same person, then the information in those sources can be used. WP does not require that multiple sources confirm every piece of information, merely unique claims of notability or extraordinary claims should have more than one source. It is not original research to state different information that is given in different sources, as it is given in that source. It is neither an assumption nor drawing a conclusion. SusunW (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". This is my last word as far as I can see this usage violates OR.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It is verifiable. No conclusions or synthesis were required to infer who the family members were. The source listed them. But I agree, our exchange is not likely to lead to either of us changing our positions. SusunW (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Some folks here are confusing the reliability and verifiability of

Bestoftheyear.in calls itself an Indian news portal. It appears to have been started in 2016 according to their About Us page. It's spread has grown over time at Wikipedia. It appears to be a site run by a small group of people, none of whom have admitted to having any journalism education, despite calling themselves journalists. I suspect that it does content aggregation in some form or another. For instance, here a film's budget is listed as 26 crore rupees, which is identical to what Box Office India says, but Box Office India includes print and advertising figures in their budgets, which nobody in their right mind would do, since a film's budget is, across the globe, typically considered the straight cost of production.

They have the first day gross figure at "8.15 crores", (should be "crore") which I find here also phrased "crores". The rest of the figures are about the same, minus two slight discrepancies, 5.40 vs 5.50 and 6.6 vs 6.5, bestoftheyear.in vs bollywoodcat.com respectively. Indian film articles are prone to exaggerated or deflated financial figures depending on the submitter's agenda. There is no official outlet of film finances in India, all figures are estimates that reliable sources arrive at through their proprietary journalistic methods, which might include having relationships with theatre owners and getting figures that way, etc. So having figures this close to another source is questionable. There are a number of sources that are already considered reliable and unreliable in the context of Indian entertainment. (See

CONTEXT for this thread is found in these threads: [14][15] -- Valjean (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Source: CounterPunch with source taken down, link to archive [16]. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#CounterPunch

Author: Taken from end of the source, about the author section. Looks like contributor content.

Frank J. Menetrez received his PhD in philosophy and JD from UCLA. This essay is drawn from his epilogue to the paperback edition of Norman G. Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, forthcoming from the University of California Press. He can be reached at [email protected].

Article: BLP Alan Dershowitz

Content: Diff with text:

In an opinion piece supportive of Finkelstein written for CounterPunch, Los Angeles attorney Frank Menetrez asserted that "neither Dershowitz nor Harvard ... has identified the specific issues or arguments that Harvard allegedly investigated and rejected. In particular, neither of them has ever said whether Harvard investigated the identical errors issue".

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem here? The author sounds notable and the source is not unreliable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

CounterPunch is reliable for attributed opinion, which is what this is. "Looks like contributed content" is not a policy-based argument, since all material published in a magazine or newspaper with a byline is just as much contributed content. If the intent is to depict this as self-published, it obviously is not. Zero^talk 11:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Every source is reliable for its own words. Doesn't mean we should include it especially in BLP.--Shrike (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

That principle is not the principle under which this source is used. It is not just that it is reliable for what it contains, but that it is reliable for the opinion of who it attributes the opinion to. Zero^talk 13:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Perfectly good content and attributed properly. I suggest that anyone who does not know the history of this thread should read the two links I have provided for "CONTEXT" above. While bringing this here isn't technically forum shopping, we are dealing with this quite well on the talk page, and this just creates another venue for the OP to vent. Attempts to delete this long-standing content have been rebuffed. -- Valjean (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• WP:UNDUE, in the absence of a secondary source commenting on this opinion piece. I'm fussier than some here, I would not include it, but it's not forbidden. Guy (help!
  ) 15:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, I appreciate that feedback. So this is more of an DUE question it seems clear from most of the responses including yours which is perfectly explained. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, DUE weight is the proper discussion, not RS. -- Valjean (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Clearly not usable for factual assertions; as for in-text attribution for opinion statements, I think it would be
  undue weight in most contexts, including here. Neutrality^talk
  15:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Created Talk:Alan_Dershowitz#RfC_on_Menetrez_response for this since it appears this RSN is not the correct venue and the content continues to suffer from TE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I have been reading a number of Allan W. Eckert's books, in particular:

• A Sorrow in Our Heart: The Life of Tecumseh (1992)
• The Frontiersmen: A Narrative (1967)
• That Dark and Bloody River: Chronicles of the Ohio River Valley (1995)

Do you feel Eckert is or is not a reliable source (in the above three books)--particularly for historical events regarding Native Americans and early settlers to the Ohio valley? Have there been past discussions about his reliability that I should be aware of? I have not found any. The author makes clear that the dialogue in these books should not be considered reliable, but he also insists that the events are all real and have been painstakingly researched. I am not aware of any glaring errors in his work. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You can read the Kirkus review of the Tecumseh book here. It's not kind, describing it as "Spirited but misdirected stab at a definitive biography of the great Shawnee warrior" and "A biography that succeeds better as fiction. Astoundingly detailed but ambitious to a fault, in its interpretative zeal it strays from, or at least embellishes, the historical record to the point of being suspect." Publishers weekly described it as "an entertaining blend of fact and fiction.", so I would avoid using it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The Frontiersmen is one of my favorite books. It is embellished, where history ends and fiction starts is hard to gauge. It seems accurate in the spirit of the thing, and big picture it gets events right the conflicts described did happen. The personal history of the main character are not so reliable. One could use it as a starting point to investigate other more reliable sources. If I read an article mostly sourced to Eckert I'd probably think it wasn't well sourced - in fact I recall seeing this very thing years ago but don't remember which article it was. -- GreenC 13:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable, any source that mixes fact and fiction cannot be considered to be a reliable source for a factual article. GregJackP Boomer! 00:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

There is some discussion of the recently-created Mototaka Nakamura article. A source came up published at the Carnot-Cournot Netwerk, which is a German... something. Maybe a group blog? I don't speak German, so it is rather hard to evaluate this source. The source is significant for being the only (possible) reliable source to mention the book.

Anyway, the specific article here appears to be a summary of a book that Nakamura wrote.

The blog seems to have some editorial oversight (what is does, practically, is unclear). How do folks usually evaluate non-English sources? Perhaps a German-speaker could weigh in? Thanks!

Jlevi (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Jlevi, The Carnot-Cournot-Netzwerk für Politikberatung in Technik und Wirtschaft is a nuclear energy lobby group organized as a Swiss association. Vexations (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! If you know or can find out, is there any evidence for reliability or importance for that group? Jlevi (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI, (copying from previous talk and expanding) In this case, the author, Ferruccio Ferroni, is an "Energy Consultant" with at least 3 technical publications [17] and two technical patents.[18][19] Some people (in blogs) disagree with Ferroni's EROI paper, but disagreement happens. To me Ferroni's summary looks in line with the 2 or 3 other summaries I've seen, and CC Network helpfully makes the book available for convenient download too. People (co-founders?) associated with the Network include professor emeritus Silvio Borner, and successful consulting company owner Markus Haring or Haering[20] (if I understand correctly). They have a operating board[21] overseeing operations. They also operate a book publishing operation.[22] PS. Shouldn't other interested editors be notified of noticeboard discussions on Talk pages? -- Yae4 (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that having papers in other locations does not necessarily imply reliability in the subject domains of this article or at this publishing source.Jlevi (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Source:

https://iupac.org/100/chemist/clarice-phelps-es/

Text:

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC; which, among other responsibilities, coordinates with laboratories and the public for the naming of new chemical elements), recognizes her as the first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of a chemical element.

Other than the fact it is the IUPAC website, and in recognition of all the controversy and indeed fraud that has surrounded previous attempts to get this claim included in Wikipedia, what reason is there for anyone to really believe that this one single web page is meant to be seen as the definitive resolution to the question of what role Phelps has played in the history of element discovery? No other reliable independent sources state this first claim as an unqualified fact, all cast some level of doubt or uncertainty. I am unconvinced that something that wasn't even fact checked was meant to carry such significance, and believe it is more likely that either the text has been lazily accepted simply on the basis of who submitted it without being fact checked, like so many of the press releases around this issue have been, or worse, the fraud has extended to this website somehow. Which is why it would be helpful if it named names, because nobody is named here at all, not the nominator or anyone who might have fact checked their submission. Clearly this doesn't rise to the level of a journal or book, but it doesn't even really meet the same standards as say, a news release. All of which shows the IUPAC couldn't possibly have meant it to have the same significance that Wikipedia editors apparently attached to it, first using it to recreate the article, then using this exact claim to promote her on the Wikipedia front page. Crash Dennis (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussions at Talk:Clarice_Phelps/Archive_3#Weighting_and_accuracy and Talk:Clarice_Phelps#Possible_case_of_Wikipedia_rewriting_history. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks reliable for the purpose to me (and accusations of "fraud" are way out of line). The

talk

) 13:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I can quite easily demonstrate fraud, at least insofar as what people did with Chapman's book, how they tried and failed to use it as a source. It is actually pretty blatant once all the edit logs, Tweets and media statements are compiled and looked at together, in the round. Whether the appearance of this source, which finally achieves their apparent goals, is a more artful and less traceable continuation of the fraud, or an innocent mistake they had no part in, that is what I am hoping to clear up here. Cast iron reasons to believe this specific web page or website section should carry equivalent gravitas to say, a journal article, would do that. Have you any? I certainly did not need reminding what the IUPAC do or that in most cases they probably do apply full academic rigour to their publications, that is all a given in the above, but your comment doesn't address why there is still good reason to believe that in this case, they might not have. Crash Dennis (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not an RS issue it is a

wp:undue issue. Yes they are RS for what they say.Slatersteven (talk

) 13:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

How do you intend to prove this, other than the circular argument that they are the IUPAC? Do you assume infallibility on their part, for example? I have already accepted that for most things, they could be assumed to be reliable, but there are specific reasons to doubt it in this case. Hence this review exercise, a thorough review of this specific source for use in this specific manner. The issue of prominence and indeed the parallel omission of all the other reliable sources which cast doubt on this one, can be raised as a proposed change of text, as suggested there, if that is not rendered moot here. Crash Dennis (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said this is a

wp:undue issue, not an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk

) 15:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As to the rest, we do not claim it is a fact, we claim they have said this. They are an RS for what they say, they may not be an RS for it being true, but then we are not claiming it is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

See below, and previous statements. You are misusing attribution as a get out of jail free card, not as a means of identifying who believes what in cases of source disagreements or sparcity of coverage. The fact this source was published by the IUPAC did not stop Wikipedia editors correcting their obvious spelling mistake, they applied critical thinking to weight the possibility that was an error. This same principle applies here, you are discounting any and all evidence that this might have been an erroneous statement, on the mere basis of who is making it, but instead of fixing that error, you're attributing. Stating who said it does not absolve you of responsibility of what can happen if you end up repeating a false claim based on merely who said it, because like it or not, no reader will ever read that text and assume you're wanting them to apply their own critical thinking as to whether the IUPAC might not be a reliable source for what they have said. The text pretty blatantly tries to persuade people they should be taking them as the authority in such matters, without of course telling them the sort of things I have identified that cast doubt on it for use in this context, including the fact all other independent reliable sources use qualifiers. Crash Dennis (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE). That would be a matter for editorial consensus via the Talk page, or an additional secondary reliable source noting the recognition. This is not especially controversial I'd say, so even a story based on a press release from the lab should be enough. Guy (help!

) 15:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This cannot be a primary source in that sense, the people who have believed it was a true fact all along seized on it to recreate the biography precisely because it is their hope the magic initials IUPAC, without any other critical examination of what it is and how it is being used, means this makes it an entirely more believable claim than when it was simply coming from Phelps' employer and nobody else presumed reliable for such a claim would touch it with a bargepole without qualifiers. They want people to believe IUPAC have independently verified it as if it were a journal paper on the history of element discovery, rather than as I suspect, they perhaps have simply taken Kit Chapman at his word as a recognized expert, having maybe not realised that the guy who said he "literally wrote the book" didn't ultimately say this about Phelps in his book, or anything close to it. If the claim cannot reasonably be assumed to have been fact checked, then attribution is in effect, merely a case of Wikipedia choosing to duck responsibility and perhaps hope IUPAC carry the can if or when someone realizes their mistake. It is my belief that IUPAC would kick that can right back into Wikipedia's court, on the basis Wikipedia clearly hasn't taken full account of the likelihood of an error, and they would presumably point them to their website disclaimer and remind them that it is really only their peer reviewed journals and books that should be used for claims like this, certainly when the claim stands alone as an historical fact in their wheelhouse. Crash Dennis (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Chapman said, Hi. I literally *wrote the book* on the history of transuranium element discovery. I've met all the teams. That's using "wrote the book" in the sense of "I've done the research", not "if you look at page 216 of my book you will see a verbatim statement of the following claim". He goes on to elaborate (it's an interesting bit of science history, and a glimpse back to when experimental teams were small; not the worst use of Twitter, actually). And his book does mention Phelps in the context of African-American researchers in the field. No deception, no fraud, no grounds to think the IUPAC were less than conscientious.

talk

) 18:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

To answer the last part first, nobody has any idea who the IUPAC consulted, or even if they consulted anyone, in cases where no published records were available, and that is rather the point. As for the Tweet, that's one interpretation sure, but not the only one. And it doesn't really make sense, since you end up wondering why he chose to mention Phelps, but not this historical first claim, if he had apparently discovered this while researching the book. Nor does it explain why Wade was apparently among those who had assumed the claim was going to be in the forthcoming book. Most importantly of all, why no subsequent clear and unambiguous clarification from Chapman or Wade? They have had ample opportunity, certainly once they realised their early private communications and decision to publish on Wikipedia first before his book was published, were the source of much of the confusion on Wikipedia and the media at large. Frankly, more clarity all round is needed, stuff that explains all these supposed miscommunications, before I drop my belief there was deception here, because the result of all of it, certainly for a time, was exactly what they were trying to achieve with their activism, namely to get something into Wikipedia they believed to be true, and hope the media would then write about Phelps because she was in Wikipedia. As it turned out, they wrote about her because of the inevitable back and forth, because of their failure to provide verification. Crash Dennis (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The attribution argument is totally irrelevant. I don't even need to look to know I won't find a single word of advice on Wikipedia that tells me to use a source I know is inaccurate for a specific claim, if I simply state their name and rest on their overall record of reliability. I would be expected to do what is required to remove unreliable information from Wikipedia, the same way I am expected to use my judgement to fix the more minor issue of known innacuracies, such as typos. If this argument held any water at all, if attribution was the only reason people here are deciding this claim for this purpose is reliable, they would be able to explain the contradiction in the early history of this very article. Kit Chapman is, as far as I know, still generally considered a reliable source. His specific claim about Phelps however, no longer appears on Wikipedia, because it has been found to be innacurate, or rather, unverifiable, which for Wikipedia, is assumed to be equivalent, much to the annoyance of the activists. But because he said it in a Tweet first, it's still out there, Wikipedia can still include it with attribution. Maybe some people did argue that it could still be included in the article if the text attributed Chapman as the source, but thankfully for the reputation of Wikipedia, they don't seem to have prevailed, and he has been removed as a source for that specific claim, because they know what he said about his book wasn't true. Critical thinking in action. In short, you do not knowingly mislead readers, or fall back on attribution when what you're supposed to be considering is reliability of the specific claim and the source in general. For the purposes of this noticebaord, thinking about whether or not this specific claim has undergone the fact checking you would assume to be applied by IUPAC, is part of that critical thinking process. I await arguments that speak to that issue, rather than trying to avoid it, including the circular argument that says it is reliable because it is the IUPAC. Crash Dennis (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked Crash Dennis for harassment and making implicit threats against an editor (on another page but involving this same issue). Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Source. [23]
2. Article. It is widely used in various articles about Venezuela [24]
3. Content. Its a circular reference, that is to say, the content in venciclopedia is from Wikipedia and wikipedia refers to venciclopedia, which means that it is referring to itself

This [[25]] tells me no it is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven Sorry, I cant underestand --Wilfredor (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to just be a place to post user generated articles.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable Classic
  WP:USERGENERATED -- GreenC
  12:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable Same reason as above, UGC Thepenguin9 (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable. $RANDOMWIKI. Guy (help!) 15:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable and not usable for anything per WP:UGC. Should be immediately removed from all 21 articles in which it is cited. buidhe 07:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I personally think this claim is quite doubtful, given that it's disputed by a WSJ reporter and given that Ai Fen has appeared publicly (at the online conference) since her supposed disappearance. I have to admit that this is a somewhat awkward situation, given that the claim made by 60 Minutes Australia appears to be false, but that the sorts of information that cast doubt on it come from the Twitter feed of another journalist and a video recorded from an online conference. Then again, 60 Minutes Australia doesn't provide any details on how they know that she's disappeared. My impression, in general, is that 60 Minutes Australia tends to be a bit sensationalized. I'd really like to see a reliable newspaper pick this story up before including it at Ai Fen, but I want to hear what others think about this situation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, tricky. 60 Minutes is the 'serious' show in its network line up (as opposed to ACA), but its been a week and other than RFA the outlets that have picked up on the story are pretty poor. They might have a source they don't want to reveal who knows something Fan Wenxin doesn't. Or they might not. Wait and watch seems like the least bad solution.

Tangential, but there's actually been two different Radio Free Asias. The first was CIA run and existed for a couple of years in the '50s before the plug was pulled. The modern RFA was set up forty years later during the Clinton administration's first term. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

To what extent has 60 Minutes Australia been accepted as a citable source for other Wikipedia articles? To what extent has its credibility been called into question? Acone (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Are www.islamicstudies.info, jstor.org, politicalislam.com, alislam.org, abdullahandalusi.com, thesunniway.com, danielpipes.org and haribhakt.com reliable sources for the Wikipedia article on Kafir? Can we cite any of them as a reference? Which of them are unacceptable?—Souniel Yadav (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@

so unless that particular sayyid is notable (i.e. if we had an article about him and he has other professionally-published works), it's not reliable by our standards

.

Jstor.org is a place that hosts sources. It is not a source but a resource for finding sources (like Google). What sources did you find there to cite?

alislam.org might be

primary sources

for those particular groups' views on the matter.

I can't find who is behind thesunniway.com so I can't say if that's the case for them.

abdullahandalusi.com doesn't work when I try to load it.

Daniel Pipes's website hosts Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, so I'm inclined to distrust anything that site has to say and to revert any edit citing it.

Politicalislam.com is run by the Center for the Study of Political Islam, which makes the ridiculous claim that "Only the political system is of interest to kafirs (non-Muslims)." Even as a Christian, I'm far more interested in other religion's metaphysics and folklore than some worldly politician's hijacking of any religion.

I can't find who is in charge of haribhakt.com either. While

we are allowed to use partisan sources with attribution, calling that site "partisan" is a gross understatement. I'm inclined to not trust anything it has to say about Islam, and would be hesitant to cite it for anything except for uncontested claims about itself. Ian.thomson (talk

) 05:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

My views are the same as Ian.thomson's. I also cannot reach abdullahandalusi.com and have to conclude it's not an RS. I looked at thesunniway and see that "hte aim and mission of this website is to propagate the correct Áqaýed (beliefs)" which is unpromising. Worse, one of the two people cited as answering questions for anyone is "Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Qadri" who lives in Preston England and is described as a hate preacher here. Doug Weller talk 06:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks!—Souniel Yadav (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The article on Melbourne's $6 billion West Gate Tunnel project has a section on its Business Case and another on its Environment Effects Statement (EES), a mandatory inquiry process prior to government approval. The article contains a summary of key points in the 10,000-page EES produced by a government body (the Western Distributor Authority) plus several submissions by local city councils. Its accuracy has not been challenged, but almost all of that material cites the official documents and submissions themselves (see here) as a PS rather than any secondary sources, of which there seem to be few. The tunnel project is the subject of hundreds of news stories, therefore supporting notability for the overall topic, but there is disagreement on the talk page about whether those sections on the EES and Business Case should be retained if they lack secondary sources. External guidance would be appreciated. BlackCab (TALK) 12:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

There are quite a many website which was used as a reference for Italian football stats. However, i wanna ask , the site content itself probably reliable, but the site also flagged by anti-virus for a possible javascript related problem. So, how should treat this site? Matthew hk (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Matthew hk: I didn't get any warning on Google Chrome or Firefox, even with a couple extensions enabled to block dubious stuff. It seems to have just the usual ads-related tracking code. Maybe others can check with other software. --MarioGom (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I use Norton BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the verified Twitter account of the Ministry of Health of Poland ([27]) reliable for COVID-19 statistics (confirmed cases and deaths) attributed to the Ministry of Health? (example). We are using their Twitter updates as a source to update case counts on {{

As a verified twitter account I would say yes, usable with attribution (PS).Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note that there is no report or evidence of this account being compromised or tampered with. The mere possibility of Twitter tampering with the Ministry of Health of Poland daily tweets without Poland government or the press to say anything is extremely far-fetched. --MarioGom (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• @MarioGom: I'm sure your error was in good faith, but please do not misrepresent my words. I'm fairly sure that I did not at any point say that the MOH data "cannot be used". I stated reasons why we cannot literally describe the data as "valid" or "reliable", and why it's absurd for a governmental agency in Europe to publish critically important health data on a server in California instead of in Poland (or at least in the EU). "The best source of data that we have" does not mean we can "assume" that the data is correct. We use the data, fine, that's not disputed. That's not the same as "assuming" that the data is correct. We know of at least one straight-out arithmetic error (see the talk page) where the Ministry (MOH) calculated 19+6+8 (three individual, archived MOH tweets) = 14 (MOH sums per day). The consensus was to add a note and put "14" in the cell. So we know that there is at least one error of internal inconsistency in the data; we also know of at least three COVID-19 deaths that the MOH has ignored, based on reliable sources. These errors don't stop us from using the MOH data. Boud (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Boud: If the issue is some error in some of the updates, we can discuss that. But then, I would ask you to stop deflecting the discussion to points like where servers are hosted, the GDPR, privacy concerns of users visiting US-hosted website linked from Wikipedia, Twitter's ability to tamper with tweets, data integrity issues related to software being proprietary, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Errors in the MOH have already been discussed on the talk page, in various places for the various errors. This page (RS/Noticeboard) is not the place to deal with those. In-depth discusion is not "deflection". I would rather ask you to accept that there is no opposition to using the MOH tweets as the main source for the PL COVID-19 data (not from me anyway). In-depth discussion of issues is normal on Wikipedia. Here are some quotes to clarify the misunderstandings. You (MarioGom) wrote: I think it can be assumed that the information is valid. That is disputed. But that is not a practical problem. It is independent of using the MOH as a "reliable source" in Wikipedia terminology; a "reliable source" is not necessarily reliable in the ordinary sense of the word. It has a Wikipedia-specific meaning. You also wrote The mere possibility of Twitter tampering with the Ministry of Health of Poland daily tweets without Poland government or the press to say anything is extremely far-fetched, while what I wrote was we can assume is ... that hidden editing of individual tweets is unlikely (I've never heard claims of Twitter doing that). Since we agree that tampering is unlikely, there's not much point debating whether it's an event with a 10^{-3} or 10^{-6} Bayesian probability. Boud (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Boud: Please, stop the gaslighting. You even questioned that this Twitter account is run by the Ministry of Health at all:

• we are in the situation where we have to speculate whether or not these two accounts on servers run by Twitter, an authoritarian, secretive, non-democratic, centralised organisation, which is not even in the EU, are really under the control of the MOH and of KPRM. [28]
• PL - we have no serious evidence that the Ministry of Health data are "reliable"; what we do know is that they are regular and frequent and well-formatted, but published in California instead of in Poland [29]
• Plus several instances where you used "the California point" to cast doubt about the reliability of the source.

However, if you agree that all of these points are irrelevant to determine the

reliability of the source, as it seems you do in your last comment, I guess this thread is kind of solved at this point. --MarioGom (talk

) 15:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

In referring to

WP:AGF: it seems that you are accusing me of having negative intent by pointing to uncontroversial facts and that I am psychologically abusing other Wikipedians. The uncertainties of obtaining knowledge may be psychologically uncomfortable to some people, but in Wikipedia, as in scientific study of the real world, these uncertainties are inevitable, and we have to live with them. Referring to context is the contrary of making people doubt their memory and perception. Being suspicious of knowledge managed by authoritarian organisations is healthy for encyclopedic and scientific knowledge. I do not say that the context is irrelevant in judging whether the MOH tweets qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. What I do say is that overall, keeping the context in mind, it is reasonable to let the MOH tweets have the Wikipedia status of a reliable source. You might also wish to withdraw your accusation that by talking about Twitter as a secretive authoritarian organisation that is in California, not in the EU, I have tried to psychologically abuse Wikipedians. Boud (talk

) 16:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do not rehash this argument here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw your note after I saved my edit. I agree that the issue is closed. I can survive without an apology from MarioGom. :) Boud (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Axios.com has been used many times in Wikipedia.[30] However, it has only been discussed on RSN a little, once.[31][32] I also brought it up here, but there was approximately zero discussion. My opinion is Axios.com should be avoided because the Axios_(website) uses Native_advertising, which is a deceptive practice, and Wikipedia should avoid being complicit in sending users to be subjected to that practice. Their About highlights "Smart Brevity®" with mission: "Axios gets you smarter, faster on what matters," and says (long) "Stories are too long or too boring."[33] As promised, their articles (really more like short blog posts) lack depth, and as a result provide little useful insight. (Aside: However, because of the site practices, the site causes my slower devices' CPUs to be overloaded, and my network traffic to stay high the entire time the site is viewed. So they fail on the "faster" promise.) -- Yae4 (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, they claim to have some ethics and presumably review ([34]). I think they are reliable just like a small newspaper, through they do try to look like 'new media'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's reputable and generally reliable. As a google search for "Axios reports" shows, the news source is used by many other reputable RS (NPR, NBC News, CBS, CNBC, QZ, U.S. News, Haaretz, the Atlantic, Star Tribune, The Hill, Daily Beast, KFF), substantiating its reliability. Furthermore, the people behind the website are all reputable journalists from other recognized RS. I see no RS about how the website engages in deceptive practices, so I cannot take a position on that, and other users shouldn't unless OP can actually substantiate it.

talk

) 12:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@

Snooganssnoogans: See the wiki articles linked above: Axios_(website) ("Axios generates revenue through short-form native advertising") and Native_advertising ("probably deceptive under federal law"), and their sources, and others, like this and this. -- Yae4 (talk

) 15:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, reputable, but with an agenda so attribution may be advisable. Guy (help!) 15:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point, they do admit to having an agenda, so attribution for any controversial content is indeed a good idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it's willing to offer clarifications and retractions, based on the example in this Axios article as discussed in this NYT story.

Another detail from the NYT piece: The founder of Politico (VandeHei) supports the short style of Axios, saying, "Journalists have a bad, bad habit of equating length with substance and depth."

Here's a [NYT piece] that uses an Axios interview very heavily.

Finally, what is the specific form of the native advertising? If it is clearly marked, would it necessarily impact reliability? Jlevi (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Jlevi, for the examples. The Axios "article" is a perfect example of a very short, twitter-like post, and even that needed correction. Also, it links to NY Times. You seem to be supporting NY Times as a reliable source, but against Axios. Your first NY Times example is a detailed discussion of how these Axios posts go wrong.

Another detail from the NYT Piece, in the NYT author's own voice, criticizes Axios: "That Mr. Swan works for Axios, the rapid-fire news site founded by the Politico creators Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei, brings its own complications. Its stripped-down version of journalism (motto: “smart brevity”) means its articles are presented as bullet points that can negate nuance, with headlines that can hype."

The second NYT piece lowers my view of both NYT and Axios. Do I really need NYT to write articles about an Axios post, and Twitter tweets, with links to youtube?

The form of native ads? You tell me. My browsing PC melts down if I try to see them. According to the Adweek source for the Axios_(website) article, excerpt: "Those native items, which have featured messages from brands like AT&T, Anheuser-Busch and Facebook, borrow the formatting of Axios news bulletins—headline, image and a short block of text—and take up the full screen of a mobile device when they appear in newsletters or on the website. Axios says its short-form native ads have engagement rates that are, on average, four times that of a traditional banner ad, and Schwartz is quick to compare Axios’s native ads to social media advertisements." Based on that, the ads look deceptively like "news."

Adding another example: Axios longer article with an appalling error "Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Science Feedback does not have a website." How hard is it to check whether they have a website?! That IS what Climate/Health/Science Feedback does - operate a website. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Usable - Reputable; retractions and errata notices are also part of good journalism. May need attribution. —PaleoNeonate – 08:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

YouTube is not always unreliable. It is reliable in cases where YouTube is its actual proof of existing, or the fact is related to YouTube. I want to hear other people's concerns. Pikachu6686 (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

If you could find a specific example to which you can relate this discussion, that would probably be helpful. Otherwise, I'm not sure this statement can be meaningfully addressed.

Consider looking at

WP:RSP entry to see the conditions under which Youtube is clearly acceptable. Do you feel that there are examples where something beyond what is discussed in those locations should be accepted? Jlevi (talk

) 01:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It is always unreliable because (1) the information in clips is not fact-checked by youtube and (2) we don't know it the statements people make on youtube have been edited. It normally goes against good scholarship to use it. If you are editing an article about corona virus for example, there is no reason to reject what the World Health Organizations says or major media reports and instead use a youtube clip. TFD (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

We can't judge reliability of a YouTube clip simply by being on YouTube, though 99% of the material on YouTube will be considered unreliable or unusable as either we have no clear idea of whom the uploader actually is, or that the material will likely be a copyright violation of the actual work. We can use YouTube videos where the channel is clearly identified as the entity it presents itself has (verified), that they are an appropriate expert for the material in the video, that they own the copyright on the video and materials within it, and otherwise thus relevant. (For a quick example this video from AMC that's behind the scenes on Better Call Saul meets all those requirements) But most other videos are not like that and thus cannot be used. We're not judging YouTube itself, since they don't actually publish the works. --Masem (t) 04:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Because Youtube is user-generated content, I don't think that it could be an RS. >>BEANS X2t 13:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

What if the fact was how many likes a video had? Like if you were stating how many likes a video had, it would be reliable, right? Pikachu6686 (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Technically things like view counts, likes, etc are reliable, but because these are gameable numbers, it is always better to let a third-party source report on them. --Masem (t) 05:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Because of the above concern, and because a Youtube video's view count is a primary source, view counts will probably not be

due in an article mentioning a Youtube video/channel unless a secondary source has commented on it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk

06:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

We also want to avoid the inevitable minute-by-minute view count updates that will spam the watchlists and new edits patrols. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

If the fact of how many likes a video had is only found on YT (the

WP:RSPYT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 07:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a discussion about YouTube, I wonder if it's okay to say that you can add an external link in articles to a documentary video produced by a reliable source. For example, this Video on YouTube in Jambiya article.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Again less of an RS than an undue issue.Slatersteven (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• • There was an RFC on this not long ago that determined that views and subscribers should be included on youtube related articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, can you link to the RFC? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

While creating the biography of living person I have found that there are few interviews on television with expert advice on the news. But the news become older and miss placed on Google. I found that it is on YouTube not on Google is the source called reliable? and those source are from best tv channel. Kashish pall (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

That depends on whose Youtube channel it is. Care to show us what it is?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, guessing it's Sandeep Maheshwari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (help!) 22:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Could not care less about which article its the youtube channel I am concerned about.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Plant Based News is a promotional vegan website. I believe it fails

I removed it from the Vegan school meal article, but it is used on a few other articles as well. Thoughts? Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

From their about page, they do seem to have an editing staff (though that doesn't mean the staff does anything, necessarily). The about page describes them as " multi-award-winning," and if those are the right kinds of awards, then that could be a positive indicator for reliability. The page notes that they're goal is "creating awareness," and it seems fair to describe them as

WP:POV

, so if they are used, then their statements should be attributed (not in Wikipedia voice).

They say that they use this code of conduct and make corrections. It would be useful to see if they actually have made corrections. They use affiliate links, but they say they use clearly marked notices for

WP:RS

says, "Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article." They seem to meet this requirement. In addition, I haven't hit too many sponsored pages, so there may be useful material here.

Huh. On the other hand, this article certainly feels like an advertisement, but it's not marked.

I looked at a few example articles, and from what I can see this site tends to rely on a single source for each of their articles. An example is this article about UK meat consumption. It uses one specific source for all the content in the article, and they add little analysis or commentary. For this reason, it's unlikely that this site would be useful for establishing notability, since a lot of the articles don't seem to be

independent

of their subjects, failing to add new information/analysis. Please note that I'm fairly new to making this kind of evaluation, so I may be misunderstanding this feature. In addition, I may be looking at an uncharacteristic collection of articles, so this statement should be evaluated on an article-by-article basis. This does, however, appear to be a trend.

I haven't found too many examples of this source cited by reliable sources. For what it's worth, it's cited in this Fox Business story which has been reprinted on Yahoo! News, but in the version on the fox site, the link is replaced with a BBC link. A food network article cites it, too. That's about all I can find. Jlevi (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I would opt for more information required, what is their reputation (and no just "winning awards" is not a sign of anything, it could be The BAttly town women guilds award for the best floral reenactment of Pearl Harbour).Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Demographia [36] is a website run by one person, Wendell Cox and is used as the source of urban population of cities in List of largest cities among others.

I'm wondering if it is reliable, as Cox is an anti-public transit lobbyist and generally creates research articles that favour car-based development (like suburbs). In itself, this doesn't disqualify the source, however, in determining what constitutes an "urban area", there is criticism based largely on his unique definition of density. Articles such as "Why demographia is fundamentally wrong" have been published [37] online with a similar criticism for his unique definition of density. His work is not peer reviewed, and his definitions are his own creation. One specific example of what I would call bizarre: he lumps Providence, Rhode Island as part of Boston, Massachusetts. I would say that those are two difference cities, as would most people, I assume. He would say, I imagine, that because they are drivable in an hour they are the same city, because of his car-centric bias.

What do you think? I'm not an expert in this field, but the lack of peer review and single person determination of standards such as density is fishy to me. Mattximus (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Bloomberg News: Demographia, a research firm, has just released its fourth annual international housing affordability survey, and it’s worth a look.[38]
• CNN: A recent report by Demographia, an international urban planning policy consultancy, ranked Hong Kong as the least-affordable housing market for the ninth straight year, ahead of New York, London and Sydney.[39]
• The Japan Times: More than 27 million people live in and around Delhi, with about 700,000 more joining them each year, according to research firm Demographia.[40]
• Sydney Morning Herald: Late January every year for the past seven years, the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey is released.[41]
• The New York Times: Vancouver was ranked the third most unaffordable city in the world, after Hong Kong and Sydney, in a study published this year by Demographia, a consulting firm.[42]
• BBC: The Demographia survey, which focuses on the middle of the market across nine nations, found the price of a home is now more than seven times the average household income.[43]
• Reuters: A study by U.S.-based firm Demographia of international housing affordability in six nations found that while the United States had the top 5 least affordable cities, along with Canada it had all the affordable housing markets.[44]
• Wall Street Journal: An average home in Sydney now costs more than 12 times the median income there, according to research firm Demographia..[45]
  .
• The Daily Telegraph: Demographia’s annual Housing Affordability Survey, which calculates median house prices divided by median incomes by region, suggests a ratio of 8.5 in London, 6.8 in Cambridge, 6.4 in Oxford and 7 in Bournemouth.[46]
• The Straits Times: The city was named the least affordable real estate market in the world for an eighth year by Demographia, an urban planning policy consultancy.[47]
• The Guardian: According to the Demographia research group, the world’s most populous country boasts 102 cities bigger than 1 million people.[48]
• Time: The sales price, per square foot, is three times more than the median square foot price for homes in Hong Kong, which has been ranked by the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey as the world’s most expensive housing market for the ninth straight year.[49]

The amount of major news services citing the Demographia data say it all. I'm not in a position to judge a work by an "urban consulting firm", because I have no background education in urban planning whatsoever. But one thing for sure is that there's no accurate and definite "urban area", because simply there's no official boundary of it. Demographia explains their methodology in their publication. There's always flaw in every study, let alone urban study. That's all I can say. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you link to his methodology? The methodology section on his website is very vague and not scientific at all. Also because newspapers pick up his publications doesn’t make them true because it’s not a peer review. Mattximus (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would expect better sources to be available. At best, we should attribute as the news services do, because of obvious partisan lean. buidhe 11:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If official census data is available for urban area populations, would that be the preferred source? There are users that argue against this. Mattximus (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I would use either the actual censuses or news media reporting the data. Also, you should use intext citation (that is, mention the source in the text), which is what the publications do. TFD (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Spiked is currently used in 268 articles  , the publication has a somewhat confusing political history as it was originally founded as "Living Marxism" but the magazine is considered to have a right-libertarian slant. Media Bias/Fact Check rates their fact checking record as "mixed" while also stating that there are "many articles featuring anti-feminist tones" and that "they are fiercely pro-Brexit and when covering USA politics they report favorably on President Donald Trump",it has also recieved significant funding from the Charles Koch Foundation. The source has been discussed a couple of times before 1 2. It seems similar to Quilette, with it essentially being a right-wing opinion magazine, and therefore an inherently unreliable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)}}

No comment on Spiked (spiked-online.com), but I need to point out that

self-published. I would rely on more reliable sources to gauge Spiked's reliability. — Newslinger talk

06:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

My bad on that one, Spiked seems to be covered far less by reliable sources than Quilette, so I retract my comment for the moment, and will reformulate it at an opportune time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why Spiked would be used as a source for anything here. It is purely a platform for (contrarian) opinions, and so if it is used as a source for anything other than the opinions of its contributors that would be worrying. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It's being used in the Neoliberalism article to back the statement: "In the 21st century, the term has increasingly been used to denote the free-market economics of Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, including their criticisms of government intervention in the economy, which has tied the school to neoliberal thought." So it is being used as a source other than for opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that Spiked is reliable for that claim, or much anything else. I would look to see if you can find a stronger source for the claim or else remove it. buidhe 03:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

My sense is that Spiked is an RS, with full editorial staff and procedures. Is there an example of their reporting that was inaccurate and not corrected? I do not see one given above. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)