Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294

@

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 16:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Here[11] USer:Ihaveadreamagain has stated that Fox News and the Associated Press have labelled the organisation as conservative and liberal politically. These articles don't seem to be statements from the media organisations themselves.

Also added was a paragraph sources entirely to an IRS document and a court of appeals decision. I've always understood that we need secondary sources for this sort of thing. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the first issue: https://www.foxnews.com/story/pols-sharpen-rhetoric-over-schiavo-case.amp is an AP article, that states: "DeLay's remarks were made public by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a liberal group." This is a statement from AP, not from anyone else. It is placed by the writer as a description of the group and is in between a quote from DeLay and a statement by Dan Allen, but it is not from either of them. It is definitely from the AP.

This link https://www.foxnews.com/story/bush-judicial-nominee-may-survive-senate-panel-vote contains the same description, linking AU to other abortion rights groups and liberal activists. It is a description by Fox News, not by anyone else and cannot be read otherwise. "But a coalition of abortion rights groups and liberal activists, including Americans United for Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, are aligned against the McConnell because of his writings on church-state issues and Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that allowed women to choose to abort their pregnancies."

Regarding the second issue about sources: WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."

Thank you for bringing this to talk instead of just reverting like many do! --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

What is the current view on citing genre based material published by

It's an online record shop, and all genre labels are applied by the bands when they're uploading stuff - so fail as UGC as well.

Their editorial articles (Daily Bandcamp) are also marketing content, even as I'm also confident they're music fans.

I concur with you - I wouldn't use it as a source for any such claim, no - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It depends entirely what is being sourced. If it's something uncontroversial, such as the "reissue" of an album, that would be acceptable. If it's attempting to support notability, no. There is a lot of latitude between those two poles. And it's not a COI source, it's a

WP:PRIMARY one. Walter Görlitz (talk

) 18:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

in terms of COISOURCE v PRIMARY, Bandcamp is clearly "not independent" of musical topics the "organization has an interest in promoting." You will see a list of music they suggest you should listen to (purchase) at the bottom of these editorial articles they publish, they profit from the sale of said music. I personally would not be in a hurry to cite such content. Acousmana (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

An interesting question has cropped up at

I see that we are using it,[13] but I'm not convinced we should. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Powered by Wordpress. No 'About us' page. No information about their authors. That's a no for any assertion at all, as far as I can see - and given that they seem to be all about celebrity gossip, I'm guessing this is being used on BLPs, which would be disappointing. Where are we using it? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

They produce a tremendous amount of live events and television so are certainly reliable sourcing for their own events as a primary source until a RS secondary one can replace. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: sorry, meant to include a search link.[14] World of Wonder (company) is the company, but I'm not at all sure about using it for BLPs and of course we need to be careful it isn't use to promote their own productions. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

DougWeller Weird - for what appears to be a professional entertainment company, that's an exceedingly dodgy-looking website - never having heard of the company, I just assumed it was some sort of auto-generated celeb-gossip sham site. I agree that it's likely to be promotional, and I'd definitely be concerned about using anything there on a BLP. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It's the website of the drag-focused entertainment company World of Wonder (company). I agree that their celebrity gossip content ("The WOW Report") should be avoided; I'd consider them marginally acceptable as a primary source for interviews and as a non-independent, promotional source for information about the company's own projects. Cheers, gnu57 14:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. World of Wonder is the production company that makes television shows like RuPaul's Drag Race, and it's a reliable primary source on its own work. Armadillopteryx^talk 14:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been inserted into many—nearly 100 I’m guessing—articles lead sections: “New York named ____ one of the top 100 most powerful drag queens in June 2019”. The problem is that the source article only ranks RuPaul Drag Race contestants ignoring all other drag queens worldwide and throughout history, including leaving out RuPaul herself. As this is a notable bit to add, it’s likely it will stay but what is the NPOV way to include? The source article states, “we rank America’s top-100 Drag Race superstars”.

Some options:

• New York magazine named Oddly one of the top 100 most powerful drag queens in June 2019.^[1]
• New York magazine named Oddly one of the top 100 most powerful RuPaul Drag Race drag queens in June 2019.

Something else? Any help appreciated. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race#Top 100 most powerful drag queens

. I would like to comment that I don't think this is an entirely accurate summary of the discussion we've had so far (it's only a summary of your view). I would like to add a few points.

Here are a few issues with the summary as stated:

• The sentence quoted above is not quoted as actually stated in our articles. The actual sentence reads: "New York magazine named ____ one of the 100 Most Powerful Drag Queens in America in June 2019." Here is the critical difference: in our articles, the phrase "Most Powerful Drag Queens in America" is capitalized, because it is a title granted by New York magazine (the name of the list in the source article is "The Most Powerful Drag Queens in America"). It is not written in lower case in our articles (as has been erroneously presented above). Being in lower case would change things and would be wrong, as that would imply the phrasing is Wiki editors' own description—but it's not. It's a proper noun phrase reproduced from the source.
• Furthermore, the sentence as it presently appears in articles is factually true: New York magazine called the person one of the 100 Most Powerful Drag Queens in America. Changing the sentence leads to a statement that is not true or supported by any RS: New York magazine did not call the person "one of the top 100 most powerful RuPaul Drag Race drag queens" (not even grammatically correct) or "one of the top 100 most powerful drag queens."

New York magazine called each of these queens what they called them, and the sentence on Wikipedia objectively presents that fact. Changing the wording is

WP:V. Armadillopteryx^talk

05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Let's allow for outside views now. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is exactly what the discussion on this page higher up, under #Headlines, cautions against: The article headline says "The Most Powerful Drag Queens in America" but the body (the actual reliable material we use) says "Here,... we rank America’s top-100 Drag Race superstars." The list is clearly the RPDR contestants, no more no less, and any attempt to frame it as the first bullet point fails RS policy as headlines are not reliable sources or content as part of a reliable source. Article headlines are rarely written by the author of the article, they are there to grab your eye and thus cannot be taken as reliable or used as statements of fact. --Masem (t) 05:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • To add, do not try to bring in any part of the headline into the claim. Do not call them "Most Powerful Drag Queens". Leave the headline completely out of it, unless the body repeats. The best you can stated is "The top RPDR superstars" which reasonably can be taken as "The top drag queens that participated on RPDR." But you can't use the word "powerful" here. --Masem (t) 05:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and after reading #Headlines above, it seems it would be helpful for policy/the MOS to address this explicitly. That said, I still see a meaningful difference between "[Source] called X [quote from headline]" vs. simply "X is [quote from headline]" (sourced by [source]). Our sentence doesn't even claim that [quote] is true/objective/anything; it just notes that [source] said [quote] about X. That's true regardless of what [quote] even is, no? Armadillopteryx^talk 06:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that you can say, legitimately from the linked article, "New York magazine named ___ as one of the top 100 drag queens on RPDR." as everything in the body of the article should be taken to be part of the reliable source and author's opionion. But the headline that uses the word "powerful"? We do not presume that was written by the author (it might have been , but there's no proof) and while the intent is there from being a top contestant to being a powerful drag queen (I'm a reality junkie so I know what's implied here) it would be original research and misuse of the source by our policy to include the headline in that form. Just basically, any time you see an article, blank the headline from your mind , its only purpose is to fill out the citation template. --Masem (t) 06:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It may boil down to semantics, but whether it was the author, an editor or someone else, someone from New York magazine said X, and "[name of the publication] said X" is all that Wiki articles state w/r/t this very specific issue—no more, no less. Unlike some of what is discussed in #Headlines, we haven't presented the capitalized list name as a fact that is sourced to NY mag; we only state that "NY mag said this" (which is objective).

That aside, perhaps the more important question I have is: could you link the sections of policy that you mention? I am not sure which ones you are referencing, but I would like to read them in case I have not seen them. Armadillopteryx^talk 06:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Awards and accolades for a work in progress guide on this. The simple answer is that these "100 best" lists are not encyclopaedic. Certainly not to go in the lead, and probably not in the article at all. Guy (help!) 18:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Once again, people are framing a dispute as a reliability issue when it is really a DUE WEIGHT issue. Why do we care what New York magazine says? Is it considered an expert publication on drag queens? Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, there may be reason to keep something like this. If the person notability has been tied to their appearance on RuPaul's show in relation to how well they performed on the show, and they are high on the ranking on this list, this would be a reasonable source to include about that. However, I would not use this list as to demonstrate notability, as the only statement to support their performance on the show, or as a lede statement. To also note, this is NYMag's "Vulture" property which is about pop and counterculture, and so maybe not THE authority on drag queens, but a fair authority on the the discussion of drag queens from a reality TV show. Mass spamming it across articles is inappropriate, but cautious and selective use is appropriate. --Masem (t) 19:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    • FWIW, it seems the editors leaned on reporters and a judging panel so it’s reasonable to think this is more than just a run of the mill list. At the RPDR Wikipedia project a rough consensus is emerging to only use it on the Top Twenty queens, which is how the article also breaks it down.
    • Also worth noting is that all of the top twenty queens articles undoubtedly meets GNG already. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Per Guy and Blueboar, I think that removing the sentence altogether is the best solution. Armadillopteryx^talk 19:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I came across an award in an article currently at AfD. Called the A' Design Award, it is administered at this site, where you can see the entry regulations. Two questions: a) is this RS? I am thinking no, and b) can reference to this award safely be deleted from existing articles? The award is used in too many WP articles to list here.

They do appear to have a jury. But they are also promising certain awards based on a preliminary rating, which you get from submitting your work for free. You get a preliminary score, then they tell you how much to pay. I clicked through the award site and discovered that with a preliminary rating of "8", for 825 Euro I would likely be guaranteed an award.

Here are some fee schedules for different scored, with expected awards: 825 Euro for "expected Silver or Bronze award status: If nominated, your design is highly likely to win a Silver or Bronze A' Design Award." Change the URL a bit and I am in the digital category, which for 413 Euro means that "If nominated, your design is highly likely to win a Silver or Bronze A' Design Award." Fiddling with the URL gives all kind of fees up to 2500 Euro. The award is cited by many articles on Wikipedia as a notability-generating item.

Is the following book considered a reliable source: Harjani, Dayal N. (2018). Sindhi Roots & Rituals. Notion Press. ISBN 978-1-64249-289-7

It comes from a self-publishing service, Notion Press, but I can't tell if its an exception to the "self-published sources arent RS" rule.

It was recently inserted onto the following pages:

"The name of the dynasty derives from Soomro and Vegho, two Parmar Rajput Hindu brothers who were appointed to rule the region; while Vegho remained Hindu, Soomro converted to Islam.[5]" (where [5] is the source in question)

The source in question also pops up at

Definitely not. Self-published by "a businessman that goes by the pseudonym – Daduzen. He is a poet, philosopher, philanthropist and writer of several spiritual articles and author of self-help books."[15]. Remove it and maybe the text. If you leave the text, cn tag it. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

WatchMojo is a pop culture publisher that is most famous for its youtube channel, with over 22 million subscribers which is well known for its 5 daily uploaded top 10 videos on a variety of topics. including such highlights as: "Top 10 Booty Songs", Top 10 Cartoon MILFs" "Top 10 Video Game Ninjas", "Top 10 Animated Kids Shows With Surprisingly Sexy Women" "Top 10 anime deaths" (which has become an internet meme) and tasteful true crime ones like "Top 10 Most Evil Kids in History" (which was actually cited in Freeman family murders until I removed it). It has apparently been cited on Wikipedia 223 times   (Note: that count has gone down significantly as I have systematically removed a lot of them). In my own opinion WatchMojo is a terrible source, it is a low effort, lowest common denominator content farm designed to appease algorithms with a massive volume of content, with no evidence of fact-checking or editorial oversight. It has no place on Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's an interesting account by a former freelance writer for WatchMojo, stating that while the rankings done by the writers were researched, (i.e. rankings were drawn from at least 3 other existing rankings on the topic), these were often arbitrarily changed by the editors based on their whims without any justification for doing so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Not Reliable. I think it would be appropriate to nuke most of those 223 citations. You would have to take a bit of time, though, and determine on a case-by-case basis whether to remove the claim, keep it wit a Citation Needed added, or find a reliable source for the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, I have left only the interviews or ones that qualify as ABOUTSELF. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Not Reliable for same reasons as WhatCulture above. Tends to be the source of listicles of useless "top 10" works. --Masem (t) 13:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masem:, I assume you also think the same about Ranker? As all three websites have the same format. I think it might be worth opening a RfC on all three sites to try and get them depreciated, as they all fall far below the standards of reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, their primary content is just these types of lists without real discussion of "why". They're definitely meant as clickbait. --Masem (t) 16:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Question Please be more specific. Reliability depends on context. Per the directions above, what are the a) source, b) article and c) content that you are concerned about? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

a. watchmojo.com and citations to watchmojo's youtube channel (which is already considered unreliable anyway) b. every article it is used in c. The entire website https://watchmojo.com/ just take a look at it and see for yourself, it almost entirely consists of low quality listicles, which are not appropriate to cite on an encyclopedia. Many citations are not to articles, but to self-published videos or even direct youtube links Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Having gone and removed some of them, most use cases seem to be in the reception section of media stating something like "Watchmojo.com ranks X as number Y on the top 10 Z of all time", but as Watchmojo is primarily a listicle publisher, with no real expertise or authority in any media it covers, I don't see how its lists can be considered authoritative in comparison to something like

Sight & Sound for instance. Hemiauchenia (talk

) 14:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I have found one ref on the Breaking Benjamin article which I think is usuable because it is a direct interview with the band, rather than being a listicle. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: has undone some of my edits removing WatchMojo from articles, would you like to explain here why you think Watchmojo is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Oknazevad, I see you have also undone one of my removals, can you explain why you think WatchMojo is a reliable and authoritative source? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable - WatchMojo is nothing but a content farm. They have no editorial oversight, no staff with actual experience in journalism, and certainly no history of fact-checking. With a catalog of videos including classics like "Top 10 Running Out Of Oxygen Scenes In Movies" or "Top 10 TV Grandmothers", I see no reason why this should be used as a source for Wikipedia. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough - that seems reasonable and fairly clear-cut, but I'll just comment that's it's poor form of Hemiauchenia to have reverted my edit prior to seeking clarification or justification of his own. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: sorry about that, the issue is I am systematically removing all references, aside from a few old interviews and ones that otherwise sufficient (ABOUTSELF etc), and I appreciate that I could have been more considerate in retrospect, apologies Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Mainly unreliable though the interviews should be acceptable as primary sources regarding the interviewee baring evidence that they have produced fake interviews.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed,. I didn't remove any of the interviews Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable It's a content farm which, for the top 10, their criteria it's a little bit odd (even for serious rankings) I think we should delete Watchmojo rankings in the reception section. Of course, if there is any interview, it should be included (the interviewed it's reliable). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable and borderline spam. Guy (help!) 16:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry to beat this drum again, but the question is not one of reliability, it is one of
  WP:UNDUE because it isn't a widely respected expert on the subject matter. We need to stop trying to say that reliability is the issue here; we're essentially asking about the reliability of direct quotes being cited to the original source itself. It usually always is. The question is why are we including the quote in the first place. The opinion of non-experts is not relevant, that's why we omit it. --Jayron32
  13:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: This is the noticeboard to discuss the nature of sources, where do you suggest discussion around the use of these sorts of sources should take place instead? Watchmojo wasn't just being used for rankings, it was also being used to justify facts, See: [16] [17] [18] which makes it applicable to this noticeboard. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

In those uses, it is clearly unreliable. That's why we need to establish why we are using the source. For statements of fact, it is unreliable. For statements of opinion, it is non-expert. --Jayron32 13:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable, with the exception that being a top-something listing in WatchMojo might be of some very minor note to those listed.--Hippeus (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Generally speaking, are local newspapers reliable? A comment by Dflaw4 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Tunnicliffe made me wonder. Effectively, are the following three sources reliable:

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/18447167.keith-lemon-show-goes-ethos-crafting-says-contestant/ – The Bradford Telegraph and Argus

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/soap-stars-street-art-987997 – Manchester Evening News

https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/8235391.former-corrie-star-turns-skiptons-sheep-into-pop-art/ – Craven Herald and Pioneer

The first and third are Newsquest publications, the Manchester Evening News seems to be independent.--Launchballer 17:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Why would they not be? Guy (help!) 20:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Local papers are fine and see no reason why they shouldn't be. –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• It depends on the specific paper... some local papers are very reliable, others are garbage. The hard part is determining which is which. To be deemed reliable, we require that a source have “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. But many local papers don’t have any reputation at all (neither good nor bad). Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(added) I note that this question is being raised due to an AFD nomination. There is a consensus that coverage in local papers (even reliable ones) does not properly establish notability. There is a bit of a grey zone when it comes to DEFINING “local” (for example, there is some debate as to whether the NY Post should be deemed a local or a regional paper), but agreement that the more “local” you get, the less it establishes notability. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that the “what is local” argument can get a bit frayed in the areas around major cities, I’ve has the NYT rejected as appropriate for establishing the notability of a CT politician because it was considered by two others to be “local coverage.”

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 17:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Many local papers are more reliable than national papers, winning Pullitzer Prizes, less sensationalism and less political bias, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with JzG and others regarding local papers - one example, the Times-Picayune, New Orleans winning a Pulitzer for its comprehensive coverage of the "Dead Zone" and the threat to the world's supply of fish, and another Pulitzer for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. If the source is being cited for material about local events and
  WP:V needs to be satisfied, then yes. ^Atsme _Talk 📧
  23:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Local paper can become less reliable the smaller the number of people they serve, which is generally going to reflect in the number of people in the editorial chain. I would not call a 2-man paper doing the reporting for a 500-person town to be necessarily reliable out the game, though if they have shown that historically then that's okay. There is a key facet that as the paper gets more "local" it loses its independence which is importance for considering notability and UNDUE facets related to a topic, and this starts much sooner than issues with reliability - eg a paper covering the news for a 50,000 person town is going to have some independence problems but likely will be reliable. --Masem (t) 00:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

True. Guy (help!) 16:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, and as many know by now, my position on the news sources of today has always been to exercise caution, particularly internet news and breaking news. We also need to keep the scope of the local paper in mind, and not conflate a community paper with a local newspaper, the latter of which is still by far considered generally reliable. Unless I see actual evidence of unreliability in any source, I am hard-pressed to deprecate and downgrade sources based only on the opinions/analysis of users which I see as WP:OR, some of which may be based on a small few incidents, or unknowing political bias. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

(Separated out from section above) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Limit RfCs when rating entire sources

subheading added 13:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC) by ^Atsme _Talk 📧

Newslinger, there needs to be a change in how we approach the reliability of entire sources because some of the activity I've been seeing on this noticeboard with regards to rating, deprecating and blacklisting raises some valid questions, and that includes this discussion and this one that rightfully attracted the attention of Drmies. You are already aware of my concerns dating back to November 2019 when JzG first began the discussions that led to the creation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Guidelines need to be established here because if we continue on this same path, the results may very well contribute to creating a homogenized encyclopedia that threatens the very foundation our great project was built on. My first thoughts are that we stop using prior RSN discussions in the general sense and use only the diffs from those discussions that support the position of unreliable, reliable, propaganda, fake news, etc. My concerns are that sources are being determined unreliable for publishing opinion journalism or conspiracy theories - the latter of which we should not dismiss entirely because all conspiracies begin with a theory. I also believe that we should limit whole source discussions to not more than 3 sources/week to allow more editors to participate, but continue allowing editors to seek consensus regarding the question of Is source A a good source for [describe material in question], or is source A good for [this material] but not [this material], and basically the questions that this noticeboard was designed to answer. RSN is a limited venue, and I'm thinking that we need to notify the projects that are involved in articles where the material was included/excluded so they too can participate in reviewing the diffs that support the claims. Does that make sense? I am of the mind that it is inappropriate for the same group of editors to be involved in making what sometimes appears to be POV decisions based on generalizations that may inadvertently negatively affect the encyclopedia with such far-reaching scope. Masem, Rosguill, Vanamonde93 - I would very much appreciate your thoughts on what I'm proposing. Perhaps my proposal should go to VP, and if not, we should at least notify the relevant projects involved in the respective articles where the sources have been cited to assure diversity. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC) ^{add underlined text 21:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)}

I'm not sure how this relates to ethnicity. We've just completed a 2.5-month RfC at

Notifier script can speed up the process of notifying related WikiProjects about discussions and RfCs on this page, but the notifications are usually only helpful for regional or specialized sources. — Newslinger talk

13:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I move this to a new section, please? I did not intend for this one topic to consume my proposal. It is much bigger than that, and needs serious review. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atsmse: I'd support an effort to publicize these RfCs more, but with respect to the rest, I disagree, actually. We have, over the years, used an enormous number of crap sources on Wikipedia. I find myself purging them on a regular basis. Many of them are obvious enough that we don't need discussions here, but many are not. We need these RfCs, and we need them to happen at a rate that is commensurate with the number of bad sources, and we need their outcomes to be clear cut, because a "can be used for X content but not Y content" generally does not solve the issue of unnecessarily tying up editor time and effort. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: I think that the discussion about RfCs and discussions about sources is a separate topic from the original question and would suggest that we move this discussion to another section, or at least a subsection. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

New section created. You are reading it now. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

We just did this. The consensus is reflected in the instructions above. Sources proposed for deprecation or classification as "generally unreliable" require a project RfC, held here. Guy (help!) 20:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thx, Guy - I understand but I would very much appreciate wider community input because it does affect NPP, AfC, GA/FA and getting articles right, so I'm of the mind that before we continue rating entire sources, deprecating and blacklisting, we involve more than just this noticeboard in our RfCs. If relevant projects and reviewers are being advised of these discussions, then that's wonderful, but if not they need to be because of the scope of what's being done and the articles affected, especially on a historic level. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Eh? No it doesn't.

WP:RS has been there as long as I have. The RfC that just closed increases the bar to declaring future sources unreliable. If you don't think it goes far enough, start another RfC. Guy (help!

) 22:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment this is interesting because I was just thinking "some of the activity I've been seeing on this noticeboard with regards to rating, deprecating and blacklisting raises some valid questions” but it was about Atsme voting Option 1 or 2 on the Media Research Center RfC and then going on a rant about left leaning sources...
  Horse Eye Jack (talk
  ) 20:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate it if you would stop personalizing me in your comments and trying to paint me with a political brush. It doesn't exist. My concerns are strictly RS, and our access to quotes and verifiable material. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If you dont want your comments to be taken as political statement perhaps avoid making statements that don’t appear directly related to the topic at hand like "Our job is to maintain neutrality, and we cannot accomplish that if we discredit all conservative views because left-leaning media is critical of them.” I’m sorry if you’re offended but statements like that are going to undermine other editor's estimation of your reasonableness. You’re questioning "how we approach the reliability of entire sources” but I genuinely dont think that you and I have the same understanding of what reliability means if you consider MRC to be generally reliable.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 22:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

HEJ, your comment was inappropriate. You might disagree with the concern but that doesn't mean you should belittle the concerns of another editor. Atsme isn't the only editor to raise similar concerns and contrary to what you have said, her comments were relevant. The way you have addressed may undermine other editor's estimation of your reasonableness. Springee (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Does this overlap somewhat with the July 2019 thread RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point,

WP:OR that contains insufficient evidence and personal judgment about a conspiracy "theory" that may be tainted with one's own political bias when involving news sources. I think we need to approach this issue with more caution, and take it a bit slower. I do not want to limit RfCs in general - we need to continue having RfCs and discussions to determine whether or not material for inclusion/deletion in an article is sourced properly to source X or if source X is reliable for a certain type of material but not for other types. Hope that clarifies it somewhat. ^Atsme _Talk 📧

13:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The Catholic News Service was established in 1920 by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It remains sponsored by the bishops. However, they are "editorially independent and a financially self-sustaining" department of the bishops' conference (link is to their website but Google seems to think this is true). Their mission is to be "a leading agency for religious news. Our mission is to report fully, fairly and freely on the involvement of the church in the world today. CNS staff members and stringers are professional journalists who adhere to ethical practices and standards of the trade." They are "used by about 240 newspapers, broadcasters and other news outlets in over 35 countries."

They are established, editorially independent, financially self-sustaining, and trusted around the world. They are also an arm of the United States bishops. So, is CNS a reliable source on Catholic/religious topics? On other topics? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

PS-As a corollary, is a CNS article reliable when published in another publication (assuming it has a reputation for fact checking, etc) as opposed to when it is published on its own website? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page say that you should provide:

"Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: Article name.

Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example:

text

. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y"."

The reliability of any source depends on context. Which article? Which statement? Almost every source, even the worst, is reliable for the name of its senior editor or the address of its office. But neither the Wall Street Journal nor the New York Times are reliable for medical claims (See

WP:MEDRS) or the details of advanced nuclear physics research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

02:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. I deliberately left it vague to try and get thoughts along the lines of what Hippeus and Johnbod provided. I didn't want to have to come back each time I wanted to use it as a source. By way of background, though, my question was prompted by AF's removal of content related to the Vatican's efforts to improve HIV and AIDS care in the developing world. So, to pick out the first claim sourced to a CNS source, would they be reliable as a source to say Church officials lobbied privately for years in an effort to get drug makers and governments to increase provision of antiretroviral medicines to children in poor nations infected with HIV.^[1]? I can see it being, as Hippeus said, PR for the church. I could also make an argument, as Johnbod said, as it being the official position of the church. I'm conflicted. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A couple points to make when judging the source. First, the quotes that Slugger has added have all been from catholic news itself and not from independent sources. Second, The Conference of Catholics Bishops still own the trademark on CNS articles which can be seen at the bottom of the pages. Third the editor-in-chief moved from "Our Sunday Vistor", which is exactly what you think it is :) , to the CNS after working on a Vatican plan to revamp catholic media communications. And finally 240 newspapers sounds like a lot until you realize catholic diosece can have their own "newspapers". As far as I can tell CNS is reliable for whatever the views of Catholic bishops are and for direct quotes. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for the views of the church, clergy appointments, and similar. In my view this is close to PR or media relations for a company.--Hippeus (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for the official position of the CC on church-related matters. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• yes per Johnbod, generally reliable. LoosingIt (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

LoosingIt, so I understand you (and Johnbod) clearly, what would you think about the example above? Would it be a reliable source to report that the church lobbied pharmaceutical companies and governments to increase their efforts in the global south in the area of HIV treatment? --12:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slugger O'Toole (talk • contribs)

• Without regard for the specifics in this case, I think we need to be very careful in deciding on reliability by looking at things like "who's name is in the copyright field" and "who owns it" or "how is it funded" or things like that. We have numerous, scrupulously reliable sources that share similar categories with other scrupulously reliable sources, and the categorical connections are not a good judge of whether or not some body is or is not a reliable source of information. The fundamental difference between the
  Russia Today is not that one is privately owned and the other state owned, it's that the BBC has established a reputation for and a clear desire for, truthfulness and independence, whereas RT has not. Similarly, being connected to a religious organization is not, of its own accord, a sign of reliability or unreliability. The Christian Science Monitor is a highly respected journalism source, frequently cited by other sources, and has won numerous national and international awards for its reporting. Again, these should be our measures of whether or not a source is reliable. The fact that it appears many people are judging whether or not the source is reliable or not because it has "Catholic" in the title is missing the point. It may very well be unreliable, but that isn't because of any connection to the Catholic church, that would be for the same reasons why we would judge any source reliable or not: journalistic integrity, acclaim, and reputation by other reliable sources. That sort of thing. --Jayron32
  13:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

An excellent point, Jayron32. That all being said, would you care to opine on the specifics of this source? Do you think it has met the criteria you laid out, or not? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I did a few minutes of research, and I would say the source is generally reliable. Other reliable sources cite their reporting: Politico, WaPo, New York Times, Poynter, etc. --Jayron32 12:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Echoing Hippeus, I am satisfied that this would generally be a reliable source on matters related to the church, its views, and activities. On other matters, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of its reporting, though one would assume that alternative sources are also available to use as corroboration.

With respect to private lobbying efforts for the provision of antiretroviral, this is the sort of privileged information that probably would not be reported by the BBC—not because it is unreliable or cannot be verified, but simply because it is rather arcane. So use it, I say, and note the source in line if you want.

As a further aside, whether or not something is good PR for the church is irrelevant to determining whether it is true. Facts can be stated simply, and there's no need for spin.TheBlueCanoe

• Generally reliable cited and used in multiple reliable sources, no evidence presented of unreliability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Epoch Times (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shen Yun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Falun Gong outside mainland China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

Any reader familiar with Falun Gong extensions The Epoch Times and Shen Yun will be aware of the new religious movement's aggressive internet campaigns (if you're not, certainly read this, this, or this). These tactics certainly appear to extend to the editorial presence at English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article. It appears that adherents closely police what makes it into this article, removing anything that doesn't parrot the new religious movement's narrative about itself—the thousands of academics and experts who write about these topics be damned.

Here's an example. What do you know, all academic sources gone referring to the group as a new religious movement gone. Note that this editor (@Clara Branch:), who has cheerleaded The Epoch Times and related propaganda outlets throughout their brief history on the site, popped up after another editor who focuses almost on entirely related topics—including hot topics for The Epoch Times—hit the three revert mark on the article (@TheBlueCanoe:).

This seems like a straightforward attempt at sanitizing the article. So far it's working. And this is despite overwhelming academic consensus, as the numerous first-rate sources I've provide illustrated. The talk page for the article is also full of extensive lawyering to maintain this sanitized, free-of-those-pesky-academics-describing-us-as-a-new-religious-movement-version of the article, often with creative angles that just so happen to align with the new religious group's talking points: Discuss organ harvesting, do not discuss unpalatable aspects of the movement to the general public, mention that we're just too complicated for people to understand for this or that reason. And certainly provide nothing but glowing mentions of The Epoch Times, if you mention them at all.

So, frankly: Should (apparent) adherents be able to remove dozens of high-quality, academic articles from the article—and when challenged, say, call in yet more (apparent) adherents to continue the sanitizing and censoring? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Answering the question as it’s literally worded: of course not. But the real question is whether that’s the actual motivation, and what the actual underlying content dispute is. I’ve asked at the talk page discussion for the reasons underlying the content dispute (since the initial reason seemed to just be discussion is required before major new edits). — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this would be a lot more appropriate on the NPOV Noticeboard, but I'll leave a comment anyway. My impression of the Talk page was that a few users were bristling at the mention of being an NRM in the lead and the extent of FLG's affiliation with The Epoch Times. The former seems a reasonably defensible position if they can produce neutral sources explicitly arguing that they are not an NRM AND the abundance and quality of those sources is high enough to reflect significant academic disagreement. But the way some users are also downplaying the relationship with The Epoch Times, which has pretty concrete evidence of being an FLG media arm, is concerning to me and I'd like to see how a well-sourced, duly-proportioned treatment of FLG's media involvement fares. I'm guessing Falun Gong followers try to distance their movement from the newspaper, at least in the eyes of the MSM, since the views pushed by The Epoch Times reflect a pretty abhorrent ideology that can't be explained away as "CCP propagandizing". That said, we should also be watchful for any overly-negative representation (in article edits and RS) that could point to actual interference by, e.g., the CCP. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this out. Like many new religious movements, adherents object to their belief system being referred to as a new religious movement. It happens that this a particularly online organization, with quite a digital presence, and so maintaining a narrative of 'we're an ancient belief system'—among other aspects—seems to be the driving force here. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, don’t call other editors adherents, as that seems unfounded here (and veers towards being an ad hominem anyways). — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to interpret edit histories such as these as anything other than an indicator of that, but I understand where you're coming from. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

We need more thoughts on this. I started a centralized discussion on it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Cuban ancestry material at the Mariah Carey article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Should the list of perennial sources contain an entry on headlines? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

We should have something on headlines, as well as book, chapter and section titles. I have come across many cases where an editor tries to support a claim based on an article title, even when the article itself does not support the claim. Titles are not statements, are often not even written by the journalist, and cannot be used to support anything. TFD (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think this fits the format of
  reliable sources guideline. — Newslinger talk
  11:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unsure as the real issue is users who insist on "you can only use a source that has that exact phrase", so you are forced to look, for that phrase. Thus it has to say "It is a..." not "...including it" or "it is studied by...".Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• I am pretty sure we had something somewhere that headlines are never reliable, and I don't know if we need an RFC for it because I know this has been subject of consensus discussion before. --Masem (t) 13:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm... I too was sure that WP:RS already had language that said that headlines are not considered reliable... but having checked, I can not find it (perhaps the guideline used to talk about it, but the provision was inadvertently removed during a rewrite?) In any case, I would support making such guidance explicit. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Seems pretty straight forward. I cannot see a case where you would want to use something that is only supported by the headline and not the body of the article. I was also fairly sure that it was written somewhere but I cannot find it either. PackMecEng (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

My view is unless the headline itself becomes notable (as was the case for Dewey Defeats Truman) I don’t see a reason they should even be mentioned in the first place.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would agree that newspaper headlines are generally unreliable, especially for claims that a certain terms like "
  China virus", are widely used, as the wording in newspaper headlines can be misleading or not convey intended meaning. Hemiauchenia (talk
  ) 18:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes ^{12:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)} - Perhaps we need a brief paragraph about headlines in
  WP:V, then no. It would be noncompliant. ^Atsme _Talk 📧
  23:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Headlines of newspaper articles are commonly written by sub-editors, not by the journalist who wrote the article. In addition to that problem, the sub-editor is very constrained by space and has motives in addition to accuracy, such as the need for the headline to be eye-catching (and sometimes cute, depending on the topic). So headlines can't be taken as reliable even if the journalist who wrote the body of the article is reliable. Zero^talk 01:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I just wish that
    WP:HEADLINE brought up a policy section saying exactly that. --Guy Macon (talk
    ) 10:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    • ...And now there is a page at WP:HEADLINE. Can everybody please take a look, improve it, and possible turn the result into an explanatory supplement page? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• FWIW, the section on this page below #100 most powerful drag queens... is exactly where headline guidance is needed. --Masem (t) 05:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• In 2014 in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources the discussion Add something about never using headlines as sources? was closed after there was no agreement for specific wording. A later RfC failed. This 15 May 2020 post by PackMecEng points to some past WP:RSN discussions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• It's time we made it clear that they shouldn't be used. If it's not discussed in the body of the newspaper article there's no excuse for us using it. Hell, I used to write headlines for the Miami Herald and I was never a journalist. I was only about 20 and PA for the city desk editor, answering his calls and telling the state governor he was busy but I could talk to him. :-) Doug Weller talk 09:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Just piling on. Couple months back I was arguing against using text in a headline as a source and looked in vain for a guideline to refer to. As per Guy, we really do need a
  WP:HEADLINE. O3000 (talk
  ) 11:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• I’ve boldly started
  WP:HEADLINE, please edit it as needed. Gleeanon409 (talk
  ) 21:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Question for participants of this discussion: Consensus here sounds clear that no headline can be used to source a claim or the veracity thereof.
  WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race where there have been proposals for a sentence of the form "[publication] included [person] on a list called '[list name]', which is [description of list contents from article body]." Just to clarify, if [list name] is a headline (because the whole article in question is the list), is there an issue with including the name just to say "This is the name of the list"? Thanks for your input! Armadillopteryx^talk
  22:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • If you’re using ”Most Powerful Drag Queens”, which appears nowhere in the source itself, only the headline, then you are indeed missing the point and you’re using the title as content which violates WP:Verifiability. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    • This isn't the question, not here, nor on the discussion page. You keep mixing up unrelated things. Please let others comment. Armadillopteryx^talk 23:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
      • The answer is the same, don’t use headlines as content, even if you think it’s an award or title of a list. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
        • No one is using a headline as content (nor to source any claim), and now you need to let others answer the question. Thanks. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
          • In your latest proposed sentence seen here you’re using the title of the article, a word for word quote, as content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
            • Sigh. Let's just paste the sentence here. At the project page, two different editors have suggested three variants of the following:

In June 2019, New York magazine included [name] in a ranked list of 100 RuPaul's Drag Race contestants called "The Most Powerful Drag Queens in America".

Gleeanon's interpretation of the above discussion is that we cannot include the name of the list because it happens to be the name of the article. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm starting this again after the previous discussion ended with no discussion at all. This website seems more like a personal blog run by someone named Nick D. It doesn't have any editorial control, just a one man show running things. One also doesn't know where the info on this website comes from with majority of the content posted by a person named Richard Owen. The reliability of this website has been questioned a few times ago on some of the automotive articles where this is used as a source. A decision should be made in this regard as we can't have a website circulating around on here which goes against the

U1Quattro I do agree that it's not 100% reliable. Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but would you say somewhere like Pistonheads or other automotive news sites are more "reliable"? Redstoneprime (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I...ummmm... was sort of asked to come here, Personally I'm in agreement with U1Quattro that this is a blog and shouldn't be used here unless you really have too (IE there's nothing better on the web) but even then I'd prefer not to use it still. –Davey2010^Talk 20:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ybsone: seems to be canvasing about this discussion, the talkpage postings seem very non neutral. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted the canvassing, and left a neutral notice at

WT:CARS. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 20:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thinking back to when i've used them, i've had some mixed results with the accuracy of their information, and I would say if a more reliable source exists it should override them, however, I would definitely be against an outright ban on supercars.net as they have an enormous backlog of articles providing, in my experience, mostly accurate information on a range of cars that other online sources don't cover. Whether they fall under the good or bad graces of WP:RS, I don't know, but I would much rather have them cited than the litany of other smaller websites providing information on these more obscure cars. TKOIII (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Disclaimer, I was also asked to participate in this discussion by Ybsone in a now-reverted message on my talkpage. Please note this is my first time participating in a Reliable Source discussion so I am not overly familiar with the details of this consensus process. I view supercars.net as a self-published tertiary source that is often quite sloppy in not citing the secondary sources it is based on. For example, compare [19] and [20]. I choose these examples because I am familiar with the topic and many secondary sources about it from editing Ferrari 250 GTO. The first page ("Ferrari 250 GTO") cites a few secondary sources. I can vouch for the reliability of those sources (I have three of them on my shelf and have cited them in wikipedia). However there's not enough inline citations to clearly cover the many statements made in the article text so it's difficult to verify the supercars.net article's reliability as a tertiary source. I would say that this article could have limited use in accordance with wikipedia's policy on tertiary sources, but I would never cite it unless i had no access to the secondary sources it cites and even then would be careful to only cite those statements that in turn have citations to those secondary sources. In contrast, the second link ("1964 Ferrari 250 GTO ’64") has no sources and nothing to indicate whether this is article is primary, secondary or tertiary research. This latter example seems to be the norm on supercars.net. Also, during some quick and casual clicking around, I also found a page here [21] that seems to just crib text from a Lamborghini press release without citing it (see press release text reproduced here: [22]). A wikipedia editor could find this page and cite it without knowing they are citing a plagiarized press release (primary source) posing as a secondary source. Finally, in my own experience I have edited quite a few wikipedia articles that have cited supercars.net and have frequently found more reliable (IMO) sources that can be cited in lieu of supercars.net, albeit often in print sources or otherwise difficult to find online. Its tempting to use supercars.net as especially with older cars there's not a lot of material online outside of large compendiums like supercars.net, but ultimately I believe it is too sloppy to employ except as a tertiary source in certain cases (maybe only when they cite their sources?). Prova MO (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think they are great, the submit a car thing seems odd. I don't think they are generally unreliable though, they are not my first choice but I can see times where they can be used. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm with TKOIII and Prova et al: no strong reason to block this site. Not a fantastic source, but if this is blocked then so should two thirds of the internet as a whole. As a side note, the cited entry doesn't even state that there ever was a

Maserati Tipo 154 (at least not the version I read).  Mr.choppers | ✎ 

21:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that supercars.net is a very reliable source; it should be avoided, if possible. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The reliability of this source has been questioned many times in the past so I'd say its not reliable. A one man show with no editorial control and content submitted only by someone named Richard Owen seems enough for me to avoid this source. Redstoneprime piston heads seems more reliable as it has multiple editors and atleast gives us an idea where they are getting their info from. I have made improvements to articles on classic Maserati racing cars and there were many instances that I found sources better than this one. This source is used extensively on Maserati Tipo 61 while describing the Tipo 64 and 65. It got me confused as to where this site was getting the info from, obviously Richard Owen alone cannot get this info published from top of his head.U¹ _quattro TALK 00:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at it, it does have multiple of authors publishing blogs on there and seem a nice website run by passionate writers. I'm looking at the Tipo references and the blogs do have references themselves leading to sources such as publications of books done by known authors specialising in Maserati race cars [23]. If the sources in the blog are from physical publication, including what seem to be reputable books dating decades back, I don't see why this can't be used as a reliable source. However, the Tipo 164 article is one of bad parts of this website as it has no source at all and even looking up the car on the serach engine, will lead to nothing relevant, in other words, the car doesn't exist or simply a miscaptioned Tipo 161. --Vauxford (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Vauxford can you be clear about these multiple authors? The only two people I see on the site are Richard Owen along with Nick D who describes himself as a "self diagnosed car nut" which strengthens the view point that this is a fan run blog rather than a reliable source. That being said, I did find the books they used to make the article and keeping that into consideration, we should cite those books as sources rather than the website.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

U1Quattro I can only find 5 active authors. Simon Bertram, Wade Thiel, Nick D, Terence W and Scott Kolecki. Also I'm looking deeper in the blogs they wrote [24], one was about the "greatest rally cars" and spot the use of weasel words like "According to some sources, the Mini Cooper brought home no less than 153 racing wins in 1962 alone." and not provide the source stating that fact. --Vauxford (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Indeed. The use of such self made promotional content makes the reliability of this site questionable. There maybe four authors but the site is run and maintained by Nick D, making this site a one man show.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking at the About us section: "Supercars.net was started by Richard Owen and Daniel Guillamot in 1996. Together they put one of the first automotive pages on what was, at the time, a very spacious world wide web. In late 2015, a small team of dedicated “car nuts” took over and will hopefully continue to grow the community.

Since its inception, Supercars.net has offered complete coverage of international sports cars, from classic cars, unique car concepts that wowed us, hypercars that made us dream and to everything in between. The mission is to deliver this automotive information in a concise, organized and engaging manner at no cost to users.

Supercars.net is built for the automotive enthusiast and sports car fan in mind. Obsessively covering the auto industry with the latest news, new car reviews, videos, high-quality photography and all other amazing things car-related. Supercars.net is your source for all things automotive." It strengthens the belief that this is a fan run site which can contain biased and inaccurate information as pointed out by Vauxford.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

There has been no concensus on what should be done. This shouldn't go without a decision this time.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know under what reading of

Mais Qandeel, Enforcing Human Rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territory,] Carl Grossmann Verlag, 2018

ISBN 978-3-941-15931-0

Though published very recently it has already been cited in four academic works. Scroll back from the link and the high quality of documentation, sourcing etc. is self-evident. She is a resident research fellow at the Center for United Nations Constitutional Research and and senior lecturer at Örebro University in Sweden.

This is the publication of a Phd thesis supervised by Prof Eva Maria Belser,Chair for Constitutional and Administrative Law and UNESCO Chair in Human Rights and Democracy and completed at the Faculty of Law of the

The fact that a book was originally a Phd doctoral thesis does not invalidate its status as an academic publication. A huge number of our high bar RS books started out as doctoral theses. The firm is a noted publisher of academic monographs. The only objection I can think of that might warrant suspicion is that the author is a Palestinian.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think approval here just be a formality, but nonetheless I would appreciate input from neutral RS hands.Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to comment on all aspects of that book, but Carl Grossmann Verlag (Q94659996) is a pay-to-publish open access publisher. At a glance, it doesn't seem much better than self-published. Daask (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The publisher offers an optional peer review process.[25]. It's not clear to me how to determine if a paper went through this process. Daask (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• PhD theses are generally treated as reliable even if they are not published at all. It doesn't make sense for a reliable source to suddenly become unreliable when it is published, based on the nature of the publisher. This is an important observation because it is very common in Europe for PhD students to publish their theses in this manner and that must not be used as an excuse to consider them more harshly than other PhD theses. The fact that this one was selected by an editorial board to appear in an established book series is an additional point in its favor, but it isn't necessary. Zero^talk 01:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The source use the same Btzelem apparently used in the article so I don't understand why this source is needed at all. I also agree with Daask additionally

WP:PRIMARY should apply --Shrike (talk

) 12:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it says that parts of a thesis may be primary. nableezy - 15:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Shrike you have been round here long enough to know that that type of work is not a primary, so much as a

secondary source

, which in case you didn't read further than primary, runs in the contrastive paragraph beneath it.

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[e] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[f] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review

The work is question, like all scholarly books in that genre, is a technical evaluation in terms of international law of the issues of Israel's occupation, drawing on a large number of primary sources.Nishidani (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Starting as a phd thesis does not make a book les reliable. Most people's first booksin the humanities are based on them, they are appointed as Assistant Professors on the strength of the manuscripts, and there will usually be a statement in the publication to that effect. Theiri mportance depends asfor any academic book on the quality of the publisher. (there are three special exceptions-- (1) in Germany, Scandinavia, and some other European countries, all PhD theses at various times were printed in 100 or so copies, at the expense of the person receiving the theses. These can usually be distinguished by not being from a regular publisher, by their short size, usually about 100 pages, and because they are often marked as "thesis" in World Cat, and the relevant national biographies. (2) in the opposite direction: In the 19th century and continuing into the early 20th century at least in the UK, some veryimportant theses in the humanities were never published, and could not even be read without permission of the author, but were referred to as part of the scholarly literature by those who had access to them.(I can advise on prticular examples if necessary.) DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

thereligionofpeace.com  

Hi, I am proposing blacklisting of this anti-Muslim website that is being added to multiple articles.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this an ongoing problem? I see it listed as an external link on one article which is inappropriate. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

We should be clear though that listing grievances against a religion in and of itself is not good reason to blacklist a site. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This is definitely not a reliable source, even if you ignore the bias. There are no listed authors (only one "Editor"), and the about page does little but state the site's goals with some extra ranting. The site itself looks like something from the mid-2000s, and most "articles" are just links to other sites with editorial standards ranging from those of Forbes to YouTube. At least there is contact information (an e-mail address). Glades12 (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes there is an ongoing problem. I said in the OP that it "is being added to multiple articles" e.g [26] was added 2 months ago and was removed only 19 days ago. Here as well [27] was added 2 months and was removed 10 days ago. There is also other examples like it is used in Christianity in Iraq, Assyrians in Iraq, Abomination (Judaism), Criticism of hadith etc.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

[28]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is a screenshot of the main page, and it shows that it is not

• I just removed it from the
  Religion of peace article. God knows how long it has been there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk
  ) 06:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• It's obviously unreliable (basically a hate blog) but is it being added systematically? Guy (help!) 14:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• It obviously fails rs, but blacklisting seems a bit extreme since it is used as a source in only 4 articles. Just remove the cites and remove the text too if it makes doubtful claims. TFD (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I am wondering whether www.mythresults.com would be considered a

Unreliable. After taking a look, this is an ad-supported fan site with no information about the individual or individuals behind it. In its place is an "About Mythbusters" page likely to confuse readers into thinking it to be official. Personally, I see no reasonable utility for this site on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the second time I've posted this. The first was archived with no replies. So, doing some research for new wiki pages, I came across a website that I've seen several times, but wondered if it was reliable. It is www.norwayheritage.com. I haven't started it yet, but the article I am going to use it for is S S Graf Waldersee, a ship owned by the Hamburg-America line. The website has all kinds of ships from the 19th and 20th centuries. It looks a little iffy, but has a lot of great information, pictures and articles on genealogy. For example, it has the weight and years of service of the ships. I have seen it used as a reference a few times on other ships. Thanks for the help, Ghinga7 (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that is is a http site, not https. Nothing wrong with that, but https gives you an error.

It looks like a one-person blog that accepts user submissions. See [ http://www.norwayheritage.com/ships/address.htm ], which says

"The Norway Heritage web site and Project was started in 1997 by Sue and Gery Swiggum, Trond Austheim, and me. Since 2011 I have been runing[sic] the site alone.,,, If you have pictures, voyage accounts, or other material to share, and you would like to submit it to the site, please find my contact information below:"

He also runs the Norway Heritage Forum. at [ http://www.norwayheritage.com/snitz/ ].

In my opinion, it should be treated like IMDB. (See

WP:RSP entry). Sometimes there is a thread in the forum which will point you to a source you didn't know about before (Example: [29]), but that source needs to be evaluated in the usual way. --Guy Macon (talk

) 19:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Guy!

On a slightly unrelated note, do you think it would be okay for me to upload ship images from the website onto commons? They are under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, meaning that we just have to attribute it, but they have watermarks of the website on them.

Also, any other comments on this are welcome. Ghinga7 (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know enough about commons policies to give you a good answer. Anyone? Anyone? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If Gerry Swiggum was involved, then it is likely the information is reliable. He was a notable historian in the field of shipping. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots Hmm. I've never heard of him, and a google search doesn't yield anything. You think you could link to a book he's written on google books or something similar?

The CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license is not permitted on Commons. CC licenses must be free of NC (non-commercial) as well as ND (no derivatives) restrictions, but may or may not have an SA (ShareAlike) restriction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @King of Hearts for the quick response! I am glad that this post has gotten as many responses as it has. Too recap our discussion so far:

Guy Macon: probably not reliable

Mjroots: probably reliable, co-established by notable historian

King of Hearts: can't upload to commons

Me: not sure, leaning towards support.

Any others want to comment before it's archived? Ghinga7 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Fayetteville, North Carolina#Fayettenam . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

If you'd like a response, you're more likely to get one if you can summarize, as neutrally as possible, what the question is. What source, what content. TheBlueCanoe 20:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources § Business Insider

 – ​​​— Newslinger talk 15:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Is Business Insider, or at least the South African edition here, a reliable source for interview quotations attributed to Errol Musk, father of Elon Musk? There is currently a discussion, centring on this piece, at Talk:Elon Musk#The Mine of Musk. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, would Errol Musk, estranged father of billionaire Elon Musk, be a reliable source on the Musk family's history, if this BI interview is genuine? (See also the conversation at Talk:Elon Musk.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not a question for

WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk

) 12:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would you say that? Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Look at what you are doing my friend. All this hinges on one article from a source we have to ask questions about the reliability of. Just wait for the facts to come out and then write it up in the article. His dad may have had half a stake in a Zambian emerald mine for six years in the mid-1980s. Let's wait for robust sources to make that claim instead of leaning on de Wet as the authority on Musk family affairs. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Look at what I'm doing? I'm asking for some views on the reliability of the South African edition of Business Insider. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: If you have to ask about the reliability of this article, why use it as the primary support for the claims about the lavish lifestyle of teenage Elon Musk? Why not find a source that is a known quantity? With this level of evidence, at best you could add something clumsy about claims about Zambian emerald mines to the article, but I think you would agree you'd need a "better source needed" tag after it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The clumsiness or otherwise of any proposed addition is probably best discussed at Talk:Elon Musk. I'm interested to get views on Business Insider generally, as I had, until now, assumed it was reliable, and I'm pretty sure it's used in many other articles. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Per

WP:RS/P, BI is one of case-by-case by its edition. I have no experience with its South African version so I can't speak to it. --Masem (t

) 15:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I note that that article you linked seems to be summarizing a Forbes article, this one, which fortunately is written by Forbes staff and not Forbes contributors. That Forbes article is definitely reliable as to what Eroll's quotes are, in terms of what he was interviewed above. (note the editor's notes to explain the story's origins). That said, to the point Martinevans' raised and as noted by the Forbes editor here ... that Elon and his father Errol had a difficult relationship. This seems to be rather well-known, meaning that anything contentious stated about Elon by Eroll probably should be predicated by attribution, eg "Eroll stated that Elon..." --Masem (t) 13:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, although in this case Errol seems to be just recounting events in his own life. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Which would be fine. I just caught that editor's note at the bottom and the question here related to Elon, just putting the two together. If the interview was really only on Eroll, and only touching on Elon, then should be no problem. --Masem (t) 14:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it would be reliable in this context, in general I think BI is reliable however as has been raised in previous discussions we need to make a slight distinction between BI content and syndicated content (a concern that is in no way unique to BI or a major barrier to reliability). To answer Geographyinitiative’s of whether the dad is a good source for the family history I would say he’s slightly better than Elon, although that isn't saying much as both appear to be ummm, Il just be forward and say habitual liars (especially when it comes to their own lives) because thats the most honest answer.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 15:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

But we can safely assume that Business Insider will reliably report the lies. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Awkward, though. One wouldn't want to be branded as an advocate of posting lies, even if they are carefully balanced, and are neatly enclosed between quotation marks, would one? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Page: Piers Robinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Perennial sources entry for Snopes

Here is the source: [30]

The sentence is the following:

Piers Robinson was part of what snopes.com called, "a panel of conspiracy theorists".

You tell me whether this adheres to

I am not interested in debating whether snopes.com is reliable or not, nor will I take any consensus (or lack thereof) here as a license to add/subtract this particular sentence from any article. I merely want to know whether this is a verifiable sentence and as there is not "verifiability noticeboard", this is the best I can do. The user,

jps (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• For clarification they are trying to use the headline to label someone as a conspiracy theorist. There is debate if the headline can be used and if the body of the article supports it. See discussion here. Additionally here are some discussions and mentions at RSN about the use of headlines as a source from the talk page.[31][32][33][34] PackMecEng (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it might be best to let fresh face have a go.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Considering I haven't seen any PAG that says headlines are reliable we can't go by just what's in the PAG's. Next would be past discussions, from those listed so far headlines are considered not reliable. To me this would put the baseline for headlines as not reliable, and would require those who want to rely on a headline for sourcing to demonstrate acceptance of reliability. So per

WP: V. I would also note that since this is material about a living person the minimum sourcing requirement is not just verifiable, but verifiable from high quality sources. --Kyohyi (talk

) 14:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Verifiable and reliable.
  International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry) when the article in question was published.

  The subheadline in question, "A panel of conspiracy theorists plan to gather to discuss whether war reporters should be considered terrorists", is consistent with the content in the article body. According to the article, the panel included a writer for the conspiracy theory website InfoWars (RSP entry), editors of a Holocaust denial website, conspiracy theorist David Icke, conspiracy theory promoter Vanessa Beeley, and someone who claimed that the chemical attack depicted in BBC (RSP entry) documentary Saving Syria's Children was staged. People in the panel have also advanced 9/11 conspiracy theories, moon landing conspiracy theories, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, a reptilian flavor of the New World Order conspiracy theory, and more. The phrase "panel of conspiracy theorists" is appropriate here. — Newslinger talk

  18:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that the sentence can be considered reliable, but if included should also include people who he was on the panel with, Piers is only mentioned once in the article and isn't singled out for any criticsm individually. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a reasonable suggestion. — Newslinger talk 19:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, it's getting pretty uncomfortable on the articles talk page, as Piers himself has turned up to defend himself against claims by an article in The Times that he spread coronavirus conspiracy theories.^[1], suggesting that the article was payback by a millitary officer after questioning Syrian chemical weapons attacks (I think specifically Douma, which Piers is well known for questioning, alongside the Skripal poisionings). As somebody who hasn't followed the Syrian Civil War particularly closely, is there any reason to take claims denying chemical weapon attacks by Assad and/or a coverup by the OPCW at all seriously? There's also uncontroversial evidence that he is at the least very sympathetic with 9/11 conspiracy theories.^[2] Giving a positive review to 9/11 Unmasked by David Ray Griffin^[3] Given that he's a relatively minor figure in comparison to someone like Alex Jones or Icke, meaning that fewer sources exist on him and that many arguments on the talk page regarding inclusion of these are based on differing opinions on the reliability of sources. As someone who is obviously familiar with much of the disinformation surrounding these topics, your input would be appreciated. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that a subject disagrees with a source does not make the source less reliable. Journalism includes positive and negative coverage, and it is unsurprising when subjects of negative coverage take issue with that coverage.

use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War is the Russian propaganda outlet RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry), which was fined £200,000 by Ofcom for partisan coverage of events including "the Syrian conflict", and received a negative ruling from Ofcom for its unsubstantiated allegations against the documentary mentioned in the Snopes article. RT is also widely panned on this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk

07:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)