Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351

I see that rarest.org calls itself an entertainment site.[52] Both are members of "Mediavine home". Doug Weller talk 15:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[53]

I added Largest.org as its in the same mediavine “-est" family. The biggest issue I’ve encountered with these is COPYVIVO, much of their content appears to be poached or semi-aggregated from other more reliable sources often without any attribution. It feels a bit like a clickbait site crossed with a low tier business news source which just rephrases press releases as stories. The only thing that really throws me is the .org handle, can’t really figure that out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

BTS page has been protected due to an editing war that happened between a certain user and the fans of the band. The conversation has been moved to Talk:BTS#Consider_removing_content. The user believes that the article^[54] is reliable, however some others question the reliability as the article's source are tweets from accounts that are known to be BTS haters to accuse the group and their fandom to be doing "chart manipulation" without actual statement from Billboard themselves because as far as the fans believe, they are doing things within the rules of Billboard. In addition to that, one of the owners of the tweets complained^[55] that their tweets are used out of context and without permission. So is it reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PepperinoPepsi (talk • contribs) 10:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Is Billboard a reliable source? Yes. Is all of the content of everything published in Billboard correct? Probably not. Should the questioning of the accuracy of one small part of an article in a reliable source mean that all of the article's contents should be rejected? No. If the information is shown to be false – for example, a retraction is published or other reliable sources provide evidence that it is incorrect – then we shouldn't include it. But if some people just don't want it to be true, or there's minor quibbling about some of the evidence, then that's not enough to reject it. A common thing to do when a reliable source publishes something that is controversial is to attribute the information directly to the source – "Billboard reported that fans of BTS...". This is based on the

WP:WIKIVOICE policy. (Final point: describing an editor as "a BTS hater" probably isn't a good idea.) EddieHugh (talk

) 11:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. Regarding the BTS hater part, I suppose it is unacceptable to be included, I included it only because the editor was accused of having edited the page with malicious intention so I thought it might give some more insight into the situation that it's some sort of a fanwar[56]. I will edit out the part out of the main paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PepperinoPepsi (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we state that during Massoud Rajavi's leadership of the

Content to add to Massoud Rajavi:

Sources state that under Rajavi's leadership, the MEK adopted cult-like practices.^[1][2][3][4] According to US government commissioned report, these practices included authoritarian and sexual control, physical abuse and emotional isolation.^[4][3]

The source for this is a report commissioned by the US government and produced by the

Rajavi instituted what he termed an “ideological revolution” in 1985, which, over time, imbued the MeK with many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labor, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, and limited exit options.

This specific RAND report has 36 citations on

Stefka Bulgaria has dismissed these sources as "a think tank and a couple of press articles" and insists on using peer-reviewed sources only.VR _talk 16:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent here is only addressing a small glimpse of what really consists of long-term issues in a contentions topic area: See ArbCom case, previous ANI discussion (where they "fully agree with restricting to scholarly sources"), talk page discussion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• The cited sources maybe support "cult like", depends on if there are opposing sources. But they describe cult like behavior and not "human rights abuses", and this cult like behavior is inside MEK, not outside. Free1Soul (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• @
  lots and lots of scholarly sources that describe MEK as a cult. That's not the dispute. Its whether the RAND report can be used to allege practices like "authoritarian and sexual control, physical abuse and emotional isolation".VR _talk
  16:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• The sources you quote support cult like practices, not human rights abuses. Free1Soul (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed, and I've changed the title of this section. Do you think the sources are reliable for the content I wish to add?VR _talk 16:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

An editor on the List of political parties in Cuba page has been edit-warring in the article over the last few days (along with a string of blocked IP editors[57][58][59]) to remove peer-reviewed academic publications. This is reminiscent of a dispute a few weeks ago when now-blocked editors on the Elections in Cuba page engaged in the same behavior. I brought it up on this noticeboard[60] and there was overwhelming agreement that the sources in question were reliable and valid. In the newest dispute, the editor is edit-warring out these sources[61]:

1. Hyde, Susan D. (2011). The Pseudo-Democrat's Dilemma: Why Election Observation Became an International Norm. Cornell University Press. p. 123.
2. Galvis, Ángela Fonseca; Superti, Chiara (2019-10-03). "Who wins the most when everybody wins? Predicting candidate performance in an authoritarian election". Democratization. 26 (7): 1278–1298.
3. Domínguez, Jorge I.; Galvis, Ángela Fonseca; Superti, Chiara (2017). "Authoritarian Regimes and Their Permitted Oppositions: Election Day Outcomes in Cuba". Latin American Politics and Society. 59 (2): 27–52.
4. Domínguez, Jorge I. (2021). "The Democratic Claims of Communist Regime Leaders: Cuba's Council of State in a Comparative Context". Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 54 (1–2): 45–65.
5. Smyth, Regina; Bianco, William; Chan, Kwan Nok (2019-04-25). "Legislative Rules in Electoral Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Hong Kong's Legislative Council". The Journal of Politics. 81 (3): 892–905.
6. Schedler, Andreas; Hoffmann, Bert (2015). "Communicating authoritarian elite cohesion". Democratization.
7. Miller, Nicola (2003-01-01). "The Absolution of History: Uses of the Past in Castro's Cuba". Journal of Contemporary History. 38 (1): 147–162.

The editor's rationale is that these scholarly publications are "primary sources" and thus can't be used as sources. Is that a correct reading of Wikipedia's RS guidelines? Are peer-reviewed publications in top journals and academic presses unreliable sources on Wikipedia?

• Quit edit warring Snoog. Even here you cannot seem to help yourself. I will note at the article you broke 4RR on the 21st. Then edit war here for your click bait title that does not describe the issue. The question is not are RS reliable it was about primary sources. This is a content dispute from what I can see and should be closed. PackMecEng (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

What a bizarre response. 1. I didn't break anything.

talk

) 01:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN allows section headers to be changed, but whenever a change is likely to be controversial you are supposed to discuss it first with the editor who created the section, if possible - certainly when your change was reverted (making it clear it was controversial) you should have stopped instead of revert-warring over it. Also, both versions of the header are non-neutral - the first one focused exclusively on them being peer-reviewed and not on the allegation that they are primary, while the rewritten one presumes that they are primary (which they are flatly, unequivocally not) and omits the core thrust of the question being asked, which focuses specifically on whether academic sources are automatically primary (yes, I know that question is bizarre, but go read the linked thread; that is literally what we are being asked to resolve here; the other editor argues that academic papers are automatically considered primary sources. They are not saying these specific papers are primary sources, or presenting any specific reason why they would be; they are saying all academic papers are primary sources and should not generally be used in Wikipedia.) I have rewritten it to reflect the actual point at issue - the other editor alleges that Academic papers are primary sources and are not generally acceptable sourcing. And to answer that core question, obviously no. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 10:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Might be arguable Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Individual academic sources (like any other source) can be primary in specific contexts, but that's not what the other user is arguing in this case - they're saying that academic papers are primary sources as a matter of course, which is clearly absurd. Their sole argument is "those are academic papers and therefore primary sources." --Aquillion (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Then they are an idiot and can be safely ignored. Its such a nonsense argument that the likely reason is they just dont like what the sources say and want to exclude them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

No, no they are not automatically so. For example, an academic paper (published last year) looking a the economic impact of the Napoleonic wars could not by any stretch be a primary source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

No, that argument is nonsensical. An academic paper published in a peer-reviewed journal is almost by definition not a primary source. I'm sure we could find an exception, but that would be a source-specific query. Mackensen (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Even though I'm admittedly not a very experienced editor on Wikipedia, the argument as posted by Cbpoofs that academic resources are inherently primary is absolutely bonkers. Academic resources might be, but this is an exception and not a rule; from what I could see, all of these are secondary. Please close the topic per snowball clause. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to Szmender for finally tagging me here. As seems to be typical for him, Snoog has decided to create a message board thread with a straw man to complain that other people disagree with him. However, since Snoog clearly has no interest in defending his use of those sources to support verifiably false information, I will instead engage with his straw man argument: “are peer-reviewed academic publications allowed as sources or are they considered to be primary sources and thus prohibited/constrained under Wikipedia's

WP:OR

guideline?” I will first note that the initial sentence I used in the discussion pages was incorrectly worded, the following working should have been used - “Original research articles are primary sources and not generally acceptable sourcing.” The statement remains simplistic but I will expand further.

Academic papers can be both primary and non-primary sources depending on the level of analysis. Peer review does not automatically qualify a source as secondary nor does it automatically make the claims true.

Consider an original research article that describes the discovery of a new species of dinosaur, the Snoog-asaur. The event being described, the discovery of a fossil, was experienced first-hand by the authors. Further, the authors proposed the hypothesis “this is a new species” and no external entity evaluated this claim. Thus, when used to answer the questions “was a new fossil found?” or “is there a new species of dinosaur?” this original article would be a primary source. With respect to the question “did dinosaurs exist?” this would be a non-primary source. It is important to recognize here that the same source can be both primary and non-primary depending.

Next, remember that original research articles do not comprise all academic publications. Most journals also publish review articles, meta-analyses, and editorials. The first two are non-primary sources while the latter is a primary source.

The reason it eventually matters as to whether or not original research is considered a primary source in a specific context is to determine whether or not it should be used only to support verifiable statements. To return to the above example, it would be unacceptable to use the original research article to support a claim such as “the Snoog-asaur could kill a T-Rex” unless the authors explicitly made such a claim. It would be acceptable to use the article to claim “there is a new type of dinosaur, the Snoog-asaur.”

To summarize, not all peer-reviewed academic publications are secondary source. Some are secondary, some are primary, and some can be either depending on the specific context. If an editor chooses to use an original research article as sourcing, they should consider whether it is primary with respect to the statement it is being used to support. Cbpoofs (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I will first note that the initial sentence I used in the discussion pages was incorrectly worded, the following working should have been used - “Original research articles are primary sources and not generally acceptable sourcing.”

Please correct it, because the assertion that Academic papers are primary sources and are not generally acceptable sourcing does not withstand even the slightest scrutiny. That doesn't help you though, because, at least the word "original research" (by which you might have meant

WP:OR

) does mean the same thing by definition but such determination is not a reason to exclude the source, because such scholars are supposed to make original research. We aren't. Besides, not all original research articles are primary sources, as in fact, researchers may make conjectures about, for example behaviour of some politicians, based on the evidence they accumulate. The difference is that they can do so and their opinions is gold but we can't and our personal opinions are worth jack shit.

Academic papers can be both primary and non-primary sources depending on the level of analysis. Peer review does not automatically qualify a source as secondary nor does it automatically make the claims true.

Let's start from the elephant in the room: if a resource is peer-reviewed, it means it has passed appropriate editorial safeguards and conforms to some predetermined standards and is therefore considered among the

primary does not mean bad

.

Another elephant in the room is that

what the sources say

, and the consensus among scholars is such as presented in that short paragraph.

Next, remember that original research articles do not comprise all academic publications. Most journals also publish review articles, meta-analyses, and editorials. The first two are non-primary sources while the latter is a primary source. Even if that were the case, which of these articles/books are primary AND not written by recognised subject-matter experts? (And even there you are wrong because examples of editorials that are secondary sources are rebuttals, which may carry no new information but which use previous knowledge to comment on, for example, other researcher's mistake(s)).

In short, this analysis presents no policy-based reason to remove the sourcing. I rest my case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what your argument is here Szmender. Snoog made this post with they strawman of “are peer-reviewed academic publications allowed as sources or are they considered to be primary sources and thus prohibited/constrained under Wikipedia's

WP:OR) and are primary sources. The appropriate place for further discussion of the specific sources for the Political Parties in Cuba page is in the article talk page, not here. Cbpoofs (talk

) 13:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the current header was written by me (I believed it was an accurate summary of your argument), so if you take issue with that in particular, please blame me and not Snoog. But I honestly read your entire statement there and it still reads to me like what you were saying; if your argument is that some academic sources are primary, then you need to explain why these in particular are, which AFAIK you still haven't done. I glanced over them and none seemed primary to me; they cite extensive sources themselves on the relevant points - it's not like they're papers consisting of nothing but pure experimental results. --Aquillion (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I found this source I was planning on using it for the article

Can you post a sample of text that you'd insert into the article Sex using this source?VR _talk 19:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

We consider a journal article that isn't a survey of other studies a primary source if it's medical-related, in which case the

WP:MEDRS requirements apply. This isn't a medical article, so MEDRS doesn't apply. It's about mating among single-cell organisms, finding a single gene that suggests a "genetic and evolutionary continuity between the mating-type specification and sex determination pathways of unicellular and multicellular volvocine algae." And it's by multiple researchers and published in a refereed scholarly journal. How is that a primary source? It isn't like any of the researchers blogged about it. ~Anachronist (talk

) 19:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Please remember that the primary/secondary distinction has very little to do with whether a source is reliable or unreliable. There are reliable primary sources and unreliable primary sources… just as there are reliable secondary sources and unreliable secondary sources. The reason we favor secondary sources and caution against primary ones is that it is very easy to inadvertently violate our WP:No original research policy when using primary sources… NOT because primary sources are less reliable. Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It concerns this edit in particular, concerning various assertions related to Putin and various schemes. Our article describes The eXile as a gonzo-journal satirical/tabloid site. This is a piece by Matt Taibbi, which an IP claims is a reliable because it's not satire and "has correct translations in English of statements made in Russian".

I find that stretching the definition of reliability, but I figured I'd check here first to see what the rest thinks.

• I'm stating that the "article" is reliable. I am not defending every article from The eXile which does have articles that are satirical. To give a universal statement that every article from The Exile is satirical is not correct. This article is well written. The wikipedia article about The eXile and Matt Taibi asserts that investigative journalism occurs from the two as well as satirical articles.67.53.214.86 (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb, why do you think it's not reliable (in general or in this case specifically)? This article is obviously not satire, Matt Taibbi isn't known for fabricating stuff. Regarding their political reporting, Rolling Stone wrote that their "political reporting [is] read seriously not only in Moscow but also in Washington." Alaexis_¿question? 09:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

See above. "gonzo-journal satirical/tabloid site" raises a ton of red flags as a source for reporting on Putin and his schemes.

b

} 09:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, it was really one-of-a-kind newspaper which can't be easily categorised. They definitely did satire, and tabloid journalism, and high-quality investigations, as noted by the Rolling Stone. Anyway, do you have specific concerns? I can cross-check their article against Russian-language sources provided in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 09:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

This source is almost certain not to be reliable to post by itself, but apparently it is a copy of the Novaya Gazeta article (not available on their webpage even as far back as 2001 on Wayback Archive machine for some reason - 404 redirect all through 2001), and I'd suggest it to be a faithful copy of such material (a further cursory look on that material confirms my view that this page simply reposts articles from elsewhere, but does so without omissions). The translation of the quote provided by Matt Taibbi from Russian is accurate, and the article looks like a serious piece of investigative journalism. Since this is the only quote provided directly from a Russian source, I have no reasons to deny inclusion of the article as regards reliability. Whether the whole eXile must be somehow categorised is not a question I can answer because I'm unfamiliar with this resource. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Taibbi or eXile as a source without attribution: scurrilous, sensationalist, opinionated, fringey. Given our article on him says that stuff he published as non-fiction at the time he later claimed was actually fiction written when he was on heroin, needs massive pinch of salt added. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Also randomly stumbled upon these two Ivervectin conspiracy ramblings [62]/[63] from Taibbi. Again, fail to see how he's a reliable source.

b

} 17:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean, 20 years has passed? Luc Montagnier was quite a respectful scientist in 2000 but got plagued by the COVID-induced Nobel disease, like, shortly after receiving the prize, and started talking utter bullshit, so we shouldn't apply retrospect.

These claims should be assessed on a) based whether that addiction had in particular influenced the writing of this article (we so far know about the book, whose foreword was written by Eduard Limonov, who was a very interesting figure in Russian politics, to put it mildly); b) we needn't say that Matt Taibbi is reliable throughout, but we can analyse this specific article only, in an event that you might think of as being the case of "even a broken clock is right twice a day". At least, basing on that text alone, I have no reasons to refuse inclusion, as nothing described in this particular article is sensationalist and half of it is actually a repost from a conversation he had. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Is www.greatadventurehistory.com (GAH) a reliable source by Wikipedia standards?

A

Pinging AleatoryPonderings, Mackensen, Myk Streja, Slatersteven, Oddjob84, First Light, and DIYeditor who have commented on either GAH or Arcadia in the past.

FWIW they are also former employees of the park. I wonder who else would be better to amass a huge collection of trivia but former employees with access to information/people and a life-long interest/obsession. It doesn't mean accept everything they say but would be a loss to reject everything; some middle ground. --GreenC 21:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but if we venture down that path, then it becomes a question of what to allow and what not (and why, for when confronted). As I said, I can see it being used as a complement to a stronger reliable source, perhaps helping to solidify a claim, but I have a harder time in situations where it is the only source to fall back on. Being an avid enthusiast and former employee isn't enough per

WP:SPS

, but the fact that some of their work has been published could make a difference here. Questions remain:

1. Is there reason to doubt the quality of output from publisher Arcadia Publishing (see linked Arcadia discussion above)?
2. Should we still be concerned that the website self-identifies as a "fan site" with no obvious reliable publication process (editorial oversight, peer review, etc.)?

As a side note, it looks like quite a few of the pinged editors above are no longer very active. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

An editor has reverted my attempts to remove excessive and unsourced content by adding this reference, listed only as "EMD Product Reference Data Card" without any information on authors, when (and even if) it was published, or any way for one to verify the accuracy of the reference. In my opinion, this seems to be an unacceptable reference as I cannot even figure out what it is supposed to be. The reference was included in this article as follows:

"EMD Product Reference Data Card dated January 1, 1959 has the order numbers, serial numbers, engine data to include 567BC and 567C engines used in the as-built roster, gearing and steam generators."

The editor is insisting that this is an extremely reliable source, which seems impossible since it cannot be verified. Is this reference valid for Wikipedia? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Prior Discussions:

• sciencebasedmedicine.org 2018
• Film_review_by_David_Gorski... 2012

Since then two statements from Novella and Gorski:

• "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness..."
• "Our own editors, however, have earned the privilege of publishing articles without prior review, since they have a proven track record."

This is no doubt a very useful source, influential and respected, but still much content is

The RSNP entry states that it "...publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines...". All I can find is: the submission guidelines which are hardly robust and i see not other links in the prior discussions.

The RSNP entry should be updated to reflect that some content is self-published and remove the statement concerning the editorial guidelines unless something else can be found. fiveby(zero) 17:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not self-published as the website excercises post-publication editorial oversight, as can be seen with the recent Irreversible Damage review, which was promptly retracted. I think you'd be suprised how lax the actual editorial control is for most of our other "reliable sources" like newspapers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur with

talk

) 18:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)twiceAgree with the others here. It probably wouldn't change too much anyway, as far as practical usage here is concerned, since the source is already being used for attributed expert opinions to refute quackery/pseudo-science/misinformation, which isn't much covered by better scientific sources anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If SBM was considered self-published, it means it wouldn't be allowed to be used in BLPs per

WP:BLPSPS. Hemiauchenia (talk

) 18:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

To be precise, it would mean it wouldn't be allowed for biographical content anywhere on Wikipedia. Since there is editorial that can (and does) correct or retract content, I don't see how this can be "self published".

talk

) 18:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, yeah, right. The same way it's possible to base a whole BLP on such sources? [ok, the rant about NPROF goes elsewhere]. Anyways, I agree that, since the source actually appears to have editorial oversight, the complaint here seems unfounded. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

To be even more precise from

WP:INDEPENDENT third parties. It's still possible to use them, just not carte blanche. KoA (talk

) 17:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Its certainly a significant slip in terms of oversight but they were never excellent to begin with and aren’t awful now so I don’t think anything has really changed, however if they degrade much more they would be in SPS territory and a rethink of the existing consensus would be required. I would note that even as an SPS not much would change, most of the author’s opinions are still notable as is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: Unreliable, no indication of editorial independence and now we can’t even trust that a bad editorial process is even being applied... They simply do not meet our requirements with their current corporate structure, the head editor is also the President of the parent company and sits on it board with his two brothers... Why did we ever consider them reliable again? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• The problem with saying a source is reliable because it publishes errors but retracts them later, is that the source may be used in a BLP prior to that retraction, doing further damange and possibly remaining if editors do not realise that a retraction occured - assuming that the error is picked up by the source at all. What is needed is that the editorial control be excercised before publication, not solely after. If authors are publishing directly, without editorial oversight prior to publication, then it seems to meet the criteria of an SPS. Still useful, still valid for expert and attributed opinions, but an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  Bilby, It is my understanding that the most controversial BLP statements require multiple RSes, not just one. In that case, SBM does not degrade our content in that arena, as it is only verifying what others have already said.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  If it is an SPS, and there are other sources for the content, then we use the other sources and we don't need to use the SPS. If there are no other sources, we don't use the SPS and don't add the claim. - Bilby (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• SBN is a topical site, and that topic is medical skepticism. As such, it would be quite impossible for them not to have editorial oversight, regardless of how they classify it, else they would not remain topical. The editors at SBM are doctors and researchers; editorial control which they consider lax or minimal would probably be on par with "strict" editorial control at a journalism-focused outlet, owing to their deep commitment to factual accuracy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm probably not understanding your argument, but as far as I'm aware, whether or not something is topical is unrelated to how it is published. - Bilby (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

    The point I was making was that, in order to remain topical, a certain level of editorial oversight is required, lest some writer decide SBM is a good place to host their video game reviews and political commentary. This is true of any topical source. Someone is necessarily reviewing submissions and saying "Yes, this is within our purview," or "No, this is not appropriate for our site".

    But it's worth pointing out that the specific topic in this case also requires the use of fact-checking and review, lest it fall outside the norms and practices of said topic. See

    Tell me all about it.

    15:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  Given they specifically stated that the do not check articles by some authors before those authors publish the articles on their site, I don't feel that editorial control prior to publication is necessary for it to be topical. That's an odd argument, but I don't see how it could hold. - Bilby (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep status quo, RS. The post-publication review, pre-editorial review, and set of standards on what counts as good ethics in their reporting are what make this source reliable in my eyes. I think you'll find that in these statements they're just verbalizing and being honest about what other outlets (newspapers, definitely) have always been doing. We find errors in reporting of even our best RSes, and even scientific journals (which this is not, and is not trying to be) make errors and are forced to retract. SBM retracts and keeps itself honest. We are starving for reliable sources in pseudoscientific topic areas. We should continue to use SBM as an RS.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  The question is when the errors are found. Forbes, YouTube and Facebook all remove content if problems are found after content is published, but this doesn't mean that content on those sites is not self-published. To be self-published the author needs to both write and choose to publish the content themselves; if there are processes which then allow content to be retrospectivly removed, it is a good thing, but doesn't change the initial self-publication process. - Bilby (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• It's an RS. This is querulous. - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Has a good track record of scientific accuracy and is often useful for
  WP:PSCI policy. —PaleoNeonate
  – 23:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

From the original post, content from "trusted authors" and editors is not reviewed prior to publication. This would make such content fall into the self-published classification. It is likely expert self-published content so it would be usable in relevant non-blp context, but it would not be usable where BLP applies. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Also from the original post: Our review of the article in question and the decision to retract was entirely internally generated by the editors. which belies your claim of no editorial oversight.

Tell me all about it.

16:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Kyohyi does not appear to have claimed that there was no editorial oversight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

What, exactly, would you describe as the difference between a self-published source and one which is not self-published? If it's anything other than the lack of independent editorial oversight, then be prepared for examples that undermine your definition.

Tell me all about it.

17:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"is not reviewed prior to publication” =/= "no editorial oversight," you’re either arguing past them or being disingenuous. You must know thats its editorial review prior to publication which matters most for our purposes, are you sure that your passion for the source isn’t overriding your normally logical nature? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Also, I'd like to see where in our P&Gs it states that editorial oversight is required to be exercised prior to publication, because that looks like an invention.

And yes, I'm quite sure, as I'm not really passionate about it at all. One wonders why you feel the need to assume I am.

Tell me all about it.

17:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I don’t intend to answer your question, all I intend to do is inform you that you appear to be mischaracterizing the argument of another wikipedian. That is important, no? Also we’ve been around each other long enough for me to know that you have a passion for skepticism, if thats news to you I’m proud to be able to let you know more about yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The answer to my question would be a determinant factor in whether your claim of what I appear to be doing is even remotely accurate.

As for the rest of your comment, it's unnecessarily personalized bs that doesn't merit any response.

Tell me all about it.

17:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Its literally irrelevant, "is not reviewed prior to publication” =/= "no editorial oversight” end of story. This is not how you handle this sort of thing, at the very least you need to

WP:AGF and realize that to another reasonable editor it looks like you mischaracterized an argument. There is no reason to go on the attack, let alone attack a friendly. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 17:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

RSP considers it GR. Would you also describe healthfeedback.org as an SPS? Would you also describe The Economist as an SPS? Or The New Republic? All of these have similar practices to SBM in this regard.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 23:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Shibboleth, sorry to jump in here, but do any of those publications state that they allow contributors to directly publish to their sites without going through an editorial process prior to publication? - Bilby (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

What's characterized as self-published is covered in Note 9 of WP: V. It is the independent reviewers validating the reliability of content that changes a source from self-published to not-self published. It is also implied (though not explicitly stated) via the second bullet example in note 9 that this review should happen prior to publication. Of the three examples you listed, The Economist explicitly states "Every single article we publish is checked for accuracy and credibility. We have a dedicated Research department to support this task." and "Our Research department works on edited copy as close to the final version as deadlines allow. We check against original sources that we believe to be reliable; for items that cannot be verified directly we form a view based on other credible information." which demonstrates they do their review process prior to publication. I couldn't find any review process in Healthfeedback, from it's about page it appears to be an expert-based crowd-sourced review site, so likely self-published but trying to keep it limited to experts in their fields. For the conversation they have an editorial team, and claim to be a newspaper so it can be assumed that they review articles prior to publication. The new republic publishes a magazine so presumably it has some editorial review process for that, but I couldn't find anything spelling it out, nor what areas besides the magazine would be reviewed and what wouldn't be. Now the source in question openly admits that they do not do a review prior to publication for "trusted Authors" and editors. The only source in your list that would be close to this practice would be Healthfeedback which I would also say is a self-publishing source. I would also note that there is nothing in

RSP that says SPS can not be Generally reliable. Generally Reliable is per SPS: reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. Self-published expert sources writing in their own field could also fall into that characterization. Further Generally reliable goes on to state "or a higher standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question." which would mean a generally reliable source could be unusable in contexts such as BLP, which is of course the case for self-published sources. --Kyohyi (talk

) 13:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

By your arguments, it would follow that The Conversation is not RS, either. In SBM's case, David Gorski and a group of volunteers do the review (unless, as was admitted, a few editors have a possibility to publish without prior review; but that's not reflected in editorial guidelines yet, so presumably it still passes through Dr. Gorski). In The Conversation, (submission criteria) the criteria do not differ substantially but the editors are anonymous. The New Republic only sets general criterion of importance of idea and fitness to publish an article there, but does not detail any specific criteria, which would presumably discredit the outlet, according to OP's logic, because they are definitely less rigorous than SBM's, regardless of what you think of the current criteria.

That you (well, we rather aren't) are able to freely post on some website is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for the source to be labeled SPS. The other thing that matters is the reaction to any bullshit or blatant falsehood that might appear on the webpage. No editor here has credibly suggested that nothing will be done at all if such BS appears; and so far there is no indication that there isn't going to be any reaction (in fact, one of the sources is a retraction notice, which is another sign that even trusted editors' content may be removed, and Dr. Hall publishes there rather frequently). And also, such "privileged" authors do not make up 100% of posts, do they? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that there is much question that SBM is reliable, the only real issue, I think, is whether or not portions are self published. Given that self-publishing involves the same person writing and publishing their material, without an independent editor, the statement that SMB "allow[s] trusted authors to publish without prior review" seems to meet the criteria. I disagree that meeting this is not a sufficient condition - self-publishing sites do remove self-published content if it fails to meet their guidelines (YouTube, Facebook, Forbes, etc), but this doesn't mean that they are not allowing self-publishing. - Bilby (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, that would mean you'd have to get a list of these "trusted editors" in order to have them excluded for SPS purposes (I see none); further, the comparison to YT or FB seems to be misplaced, because while the latter two do have some sort of guidelines, they are not publishers in the sense that by definition they only employ post hoc control of content (and obviously their teams can't catch all the misinformation on the web, giving that there is too much of it, or it is seemingly innocent but disinfo in context, or that they have to balance the freedom of speech concerns with the guidelines; none of which applies to SBM). It still passes through dr Gorski, and I'd assume he reads for obvious non-sequiturs before clicking "Post" in a fast-tracked procedure; and there is an efficient post hoc control procedure just in case, which again, they have no urge to balance against freedom of speech concerns (even if they legally are under no obligation to provide First Amendment rights). I think that SPS requires that the editors in question are given direct tools to post the stuff - you may ask the outlet for that information, but there is no indication of that so far of it in the submission guidelines. See

WP:USINGSPS: The relationship between the author and the publisher is the key point. If it's the same person (or the same group of people) doing both, then it's self-published. If it's a different person or group of people voluntarily deciding whether to make the authors' works available to the public, then it's non-self-published. The decision to let them publish in a fast-tracked process was not made by them, and that privilege could be revoked, I imagine, so from the supplement to the guideline it would appear that it is in fact not self-published. Szmenderowiecki (talk

) 11:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I think, in practice, that we'd have to treat all contributors as SPS unless SBM starts noting who is self publishing and who is not. It isn't a great solution, but erring on the side of caution with BLPs is the better choice. According to the site, it is not passing through Gorski - trusted editors are posted directly to the site. I'm not sure why you are saying that Gorski reads them first when the site has said otherwise. As to the tools, the statement is pretty clear: "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" - whatever else may happen at the backend, apprently their work is not being reviewed prior to publication.

At any rate, no, deciding who to allow to publish directly on your site does not mean that they are not then self-publishing. Forbes selects their contributors, but those contributers self-publish to the site. iUniverse presses the button when printing a book, but they don't check the contents. Self-publishing is simply a matter of both authoring and publishing your own material, without an editor checking that material and approving it prior to publication. SBM have stated that they allow some authors to publish directly to the site, without an editor first approving what they write. Thus, it is self-publishing. Other aspects - such as approving who is allowed to self-publish, or potentially checking the material after it is published - doesn't change this. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I think at this point you are just being querulous and

WP:1AM - David Gerard (talk

) 14:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think problem is an attempt to claim that the site as not allowing some authors to self-publish when they have clearly stated that they do. I'm not the only person who thinks that saying some authors publish directly without being reivewed is self-publishing, so I'm not sure why you feel that

WP:1AM is applicable, however attacking the person rather than the argument is rarely a good move. - Bilby (talk

) 14:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Bilby, Szmenderowiecki's point here was extremely important: The decision to let them publish in a fast-tracked process was not made by them, and that privilege could be revoked. SPS says if it's the same person doing the editing and publishing, then it's SPS. If it's different people, not SPS. In this case, different people. Not SPS. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Revoking someones right to publish directly on your site does not mean that they were not publishing directly on your site. - Bilby (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Bilby, Unless I'm missing something, the preceding comment is a non sequitur.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The claim is that "The decision to let them publish in a fast-tracked process was not made by them, and that privilege could be revoked". Being allowed to publish in a fast track process, or to be more specific, being allowed to publish your own work without prior review, is not changed by whether or not that permission can be revoked. - Bilby (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If the permission can be revoked, it automatically means at least some editorial oversight, because otherwise how would you base your decision on whether to grant that permission, not grant it, or revoke it? And if there is editorial oversight, it can't be an SPS.

The very fact that the second link is an extensive retraction notice about an article whose author can be assumed to be in the "privileged" category means that at least some vigilance is exercised.

Re: Revoking someones right to publish directly on your site does not mean that they were not publishing directly on your site. Technically, yes; however, that argument does not lead anywhere. First, SBM did not say "we grant the tools to edit the webpage as they see it fit"; rather, what was said is that "no prior review" was needed. Theoretically, that would mean that Gorski (because I have no reasons to assume they edit the webpage themselves, as that's not what the people said) just rubberstamps these articles, whatever their content; in practice, however, the second link disproves the notion that no editorial oversight is present. Secondly, I'd rather propose to write to the editor on that matter than speculate ourselves what is happening there. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that WP: USESPS says that a self-published source can have a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as independent editorial oversight or independent peer review processes. Since this is something a SPS can have, it can't be the deciding factor on whether a source is a SPS or not. The determining factor is independent review prior to publication. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, I think you are talking about two different processes. One is how some articles are published; the other is what happens to the articles after publication. Gorski said that they are published by the authors without review. After publication, those articles may be checked by editors, and if there are problems we see that in one case it was retracted. But how they respond after the article is published is seprate to the processes which allow the articles to be published first. Many sites which allow contributors to self-publish also retract articles if a major problem is identified - Forbes, for example, has done so in the past - and if SBM is checking articles not long after publication then it speaks highly of their reliability and standards, but it is a separate process. - Bilby (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I have sent some questions arising from this discussion to Dr Gorski and have so far received no answer to confirm/deny the assertions posted here (apart from what they have already written). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure I followed Bilby’s last comment either but I will point out that in this case some of the editors are also on the board of the New England Skeptical Society which is the putative publisher, that is journalistically a unique arrangement. For instance Steven Novella is the founder of both groups and is both the executive editor of Science-Based medicine and the President of NESS. To me that would strongly suggest that pieces by Novella fall under our SPS restrictions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I will further note that 3 out of 5 board members of NESS have the last name “Novella” which does actually lead me to question the reliability of this source a little more than I was before... Thats an undue level of control for one family to have, especially when it seems that all pay their bills through “skepticism.” It would also mean that we don’t actually have editorial independence here... That is a *major* issue for us reliability wise, if theres no editorial independence then we don’t have a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, Steven, Jay and Robert they are brothers. At the same time, I don't see evidence of the current composition of NESS's board to be having much influence on the quality of the articles published on SBM; and, in fact, the two other brothers aren't listed as editors and don't seem to interfere in any way into functioning of SBM; nor are the other three members of the board. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Its not a question of quality, its a question of editorial independence... Which they do not appear to have, I’m not seeing clear separation between the parent company and the source under consideration here. Also just FYI three brothers on the board of a non-family non-profit is *highly* irregular. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Just because the sentence says that trusted editors may bypass the usual review doesn't mean anyone can publish there, and unless we see evidence of abuse of "trusted editors" to include incompetent people or if these people start making bullshit claims, nothing should be changed. There are no indications of deterioration of quality of content, the determination of which is the main objective of RSP (and not the determination of the independent review process, which is indicative of good quality but not its only measure), or dubious "experts" speaking on the tribune of SBM. Everything that matters is already in the RSP entry, and also I concur fully with Shibboleth in what he says.

As for potential uses for

Joe Mercola charlatans and kooks, I can't recall any worthy instances of mentioning BLP claims in Wikipedia cited to SBM only. A lot of that could be included simply as opinions of researchers/recognised medicine sceptics, i.e. attributed. Szmenderowiecki (talk

) 13:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

David Stephan heavily cites four posts from SBM:

• Jones, Clay (March 11, 2016). "Ezekiel Stephan: Another Pediatric Death by World View"
• Novella, Steven (April 27, 2016). "Parents Convicted in Death of Toddler"
• Gavura, Scott (May 5, 2016). "Is there a naturopathic standard of care?"
• Gorski, David (September 30, 2019). "Deconstructing Justice Terry Clackson's outrageous acquittal of David and Collet Stephans for the death of their son Ezekiel"

These are all contain both authors opinions and assertions of fact, Clay and Novella even call out that they are presenting their opinions or "medically informed speculation." Why are these opinion posts used to assert facts in the article when there is very broad coverage of this story? And there are factual errors in the posts, for instance from Novella:

• • condition worsened until he became acutely ill, at which point his parents rushed him to the hospital. At that point they were giving him fluids through an eye dropper because he could not eat or drink. Also, he was so stiff from the meningitis that he could not sit in the car and had to be laid flat...not breathing on arrival at the hospital Incorrect timeline of events.
  • ...also consulted a naturopath, and picked up Echinacea as a treatment. This is disputed.
  • The Stephans are also simultaneously victims. They consulted a naturopath, and naturopaths are licensed in Canada...death is therefore on the heads of the naturopathic profession and the Canadian government as well. Canada does not license naturopaths, the provinces do, and in Alberta they were not regulated until August 1, 2012 five months after the incident.

Read those posts and evaluate if they should be used for such an article. Should the article say for instance: Gorski criticized the judge's statement about Adeagbo's failing to look for another possible cause of Ezekiel's death since the symptoms of pus on the brain and in the pleural cavity clearly indicate that the meningitis was bacterial. when he posts: "that lymphocytes predominated does not rule out bacterial meningitis, as it took me all of a minute to find Googling and doing PubMed.. Or ...further criticizes Clackson's dismissal of the incriminating things the Stephans said to police and ambulance attendants, claiming that the Stephans were under stress.

Mostly the problem in that article is not Science-Based Medicine, but how WP editors have incorrectly used the source. But an unqualified green entry in RSP and "generally reliable" allow for such uncritical and inappropriate use. fiveby(zero) 14:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"Generally reliable" does not mean "completely infallible", and I don't think a green entry at RSP seriously overrides any experienced editor's ability to recognize that. That post by Novella says, As is often the case, there are different narratives of what happened, depending on your perspective. It is likely the jury had access to more facts than the public, and so their verdict, which was clearly difficult, needs to be taken seriously. Here are the basic facts as being reported... So, getting into the weeds on disputing the timeline seems beside the point; the source itself is saying that the sequence of events it describes shouldn't be taken as definitive. (After all, Novella only had public information to work with.) If our article does, then we might have to adjust its phrasing, but that's a Talk-page issue, not an RSN one, really. Likewise, he writes, They consulted a naturopath, and naturopaths are licensed in Canada (and, unfortunately, in many US states). Being licensed by a province of Canada is being licensed in Canada, just like being licensed by the state of Oregon means you're licensed in the United States. Putting blame on the Canadian government is not illegitimate, since one could imagine the federal government taking the lead against it in one way or another.

talk

) 17:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem for Novella is that he is a contributor to the source, an editor of the source, and president/founder of the source’s parent company (which he and his family controls the board of). For Novella’s work they’re a SPS, but that is in general OK because Novella’s view is notable and often covered in WP:RS. Also just a sidebar but being licensed in Oregon means being licensed in Oregon not being licensed in the United States, try to apply to a weed job in Michigan with your Oregon handler’s permit and not a Michigan one. Similarly licensed in Oregon to carry a concealed firearm most certainly does not mean licensed in the United States to carry a concealed firearm. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• The changes in editorial guidelines might indicate the need for a more critical eye on exactly how we use the source, though I'd suggest we should already have been evaluating each use on its merits (particularly whether it's being used for
  WP:PARITY regarding a fringe claim made by even less reliable sources, or to make its own extraordinary claims). Perhaps a note should be added that not all articles may have been reviewed prior to publishing, and thus additional care should be taken when citing. Bakkster Man (talk
  ) 12:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I will not support OP's proposal to remove the editorial guidelines statement but the "some self-publish on that outlet" is a position that could be supported, based on this answer. It should IMHO also be coupled with the fact that post-publication control is functional and working, and the green rating should not be changed. In all, that would be more accurate but will not substantially impact the cases where SBM is appropriate to use, as, as I said earlier, I can't recall many cases where BLP claims are sourced to SBM only. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that - it sounds like what we mostly expected. Still reliable, especially on fringe topics where

WP:BLPSPS. - Bilby (talk

) 12:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Assuming thats true then they simply aren’t a WP:RS, what a shame. Novella’s status as founder is irrelevant, its his status as President which matters. Did Gorski address that? Did he have a comment on the Novella family not just the one Novella controlling the board of NESS? Without knowing who is and who isn't a trusted editor we have to treat everything they publish as SPS. Also why ask Gorski? Novella is clearly in charge. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Also why ask Gorski? Novella is clearly in charge. "David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor: [email protected] Please use this e-mail address, and this e-mail address alone, to contact Dr. Gorski about SBM-related matters. That’s what it’s there for." (see here). He wrote me that he discussed the matter with Novella prior to answering my query.

As for possible Novella's meddling in SBM matters as NESS president, the answer I received is this: SBM has total editorial independence. The NESS simply funds the costs of running SBM but has no other role or input. That's it. It would therefore appear that the fact three brothers are on NESS's board is irrelevant to the editors of SBM, or so they think. The other two brothers do not contribute to SBM (that's what I know, not what was written). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The argument that NESS has no role in running SBM would appear to be contradicted by the fact that Novella is both the President of NESS and executive editor of SBM. That is unless at these organizations President and executive editor have different roles and responsibilities than in any other American corporate organization. Applying standard corporate and journalistic ethics to the situation its simply not plausible (or even strictly possible) for executive editor Novella (chief honcho at SMB) to be independent of President Novella (chief honcho of NESS). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the information in this response warrants a change to what RSP has to say, but if it does, it'd be a pretty minor adjustment of phrasing.

talk

) 18:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Szmenderowiecki. Maybe i wasn't clear in the original: "...publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines..." If their guidelines were published we would be able to point to them somewhere. Unless you mean the three paragraphs that begin "For further background, ..." here? BBC publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, but plenty of outlets do not. RPS entry shouldn't claim that SBM does. fiveby(zero) 03:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The submission guidelines are the editorial guidelines, too (as it would be hypocritical of other editors to demand high-quality texts if the "trusted editors" could submit bullshit). These need not be as detailed as in BBC, which, let's be frank, has a much larger outreach than SBM and is a public broadcaster and not a blog, but these are more than sufficient, if properly followed, to sieve out bad quality content, which is exactly what we need for WP:GREL. That is what I consider "robust". Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

But those submission guidelines are simply not followed for trusted authors. It is not hypocritical, Dr. Novella is very upfront about how the blog works, but it is simply not what is required by the policies and guidelines:

• WP:GREL
  : The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team.
• WP:V#Reliable_sources
  : The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.
• WP:RS#Questionable_and_self-published_sources
  : Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight.

In the case of trusted authors nothing stands between them and posting their work. WP's policies and guidelines are pretty clear in this case. There is a plain statement that there is no fact checking and no editorial oversight. fiveby(zero) 14:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

To put it simple: fact-checking and analysing arguments happens post-publication, not pre-publication, if any is needed in the case of these trusted editors. The example when they retracted the piece of work due to its poor quality is given in link #2 at your opening post, which is already indicative of error-correction, which is a good sign as regards accuracy and fact-checking. The post that they do not correct or retract can be thought to be of high-quality, and that is what matters; because even if it is self-published, it is written by a recognised expert in the field. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliable I agree with Szmenderowiecki. There is a professional structure in place for "checking or analyzing arguments." Firstly, outside articles are screened, edited and often rejected ahead of time. On the other hand, to be a trusted contributor you must have a degree and a track record that proves your competence to review the scientific literature. Trusted contributors' articles themselves are reviewed after they are posted. "If any concerns about accuracy, fairness, or completeness come to our attention, we deal with them in a number of ways. Often, clarification in the comments is sufficient. Sometimes we make corrections to the original text of the article. When we receive outside complaints, one or more of the non-author editors (usually David Gorski or myself) will re-read the original article to determine if, in our view, it was fair and appropriate, which is almost always the case. That doesn’t mean we have to agree with everything in the article, as long as the article adheres to defensible science-based standards." Novella is a practicing neurologist at Yale, Gorski is a surgical oncologists, and both are professional science communicators. A contributor who fails to meet their standards would not remain trusted. Who sits on the board and Novella's position in the org chart is a silly concern given the multiple ways in which Gorski and Novella's reputations are on the line with this site. They have other fact checkers it seems, but it seems like the fact checking buck stops with them. Hence this specific retraction that is now ironically being weaponized against the site. The point of the SBM site is to convey the scientific consensus on FRINGE topics. There are precious few sites that do this (can you think of any?), because professional scientists don't have the time, interest or motivation. Mainstream press is often worse than nothing when it comes to understanding the claims and reading the literature. Journalists, even science reporters at the New York Times, are not in the consensus reporting business. So downgrade this source at our own risk. There will be no WP:PARITY anymore, and wikipedia will become what Huffington Post was in the 90's, a hotbed of denialism and the first stop in marketing of the latest snake oil.DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable, SPS because not all submissions are vetted prior to publication, and because of the composition of the board. It can be used as a parity source, but since we have editors comparing it favorably to the New York Times, the green/reliable listing on the perennial sources list needs to be downgraded to yellow. It should be treated like the ScienceBlogs entry, since those are also invite-only blogs by subject matter experts, and yet aren't considered RS. Geogene (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable in cases of
  WP:SPS policy. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. There already is a degree of editorial oversight that brings it outside of never use/nearly always unreliable territory, so it would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. KoA (talk
  ) 17:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am considering creating an article for a director. I want to use this source: [64], but I am not sure if it's reliable under Wiki policy. Specifically, would I be able to use said source for the director's date of birth? And if not, would I be able to use it for any other purpose (e.g. establishing notability)?

Thanks for the help. Koikefan (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and would not count toward notability, but can be cited to verify claims that the director makes about himself. The author of that piece isn't exactly a journalist but seems to have a lot of experience along those lines, so I'd say it would be OK to use the source as a means to verify the birth date. ~Anachronist (talk

) 15:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thanks for the input! Koikefan (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

As per our article,

CIS was discussed before at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 117#Center for Immigration Studies as a source for Illegal_immigration and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 94#Immigration Think tanks Reports (with one more mention in a quote about the SPLC).

Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

They’re a fringe think tank which dips their toe into some very very dark waters, I wouldn’t use them for anything beyond about self unless a WP:RS mentions that their opinion on something is significant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I struck out the example I found most concerning, as investigating more it seems it's probably a copyvio added by an SPA. I didn't investigate the CIS example since I'd already removed it for other reason but every other thing the editor added was copied more or less directly from the sources used. I think the other example still demonstrate a problem though. Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Not for statements of fact, and I wouldn't think their own publications would carry

WP:WEIGHT on their own. If reported on by reliable independent sources then perhaps included and attributed? — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 03:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Dissident Voice, at https://dissidentvoice.org , is an online news and opinion source which publishes reports and critiques on news and politics. How should we assess its reliability?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being
  generally reliable
  .
• Option 2: There is
  no consensus or additional considerations apply
  .
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being
  generally unreliable
  in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

--142.254.114.23 (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (DV)

• Option 3. After sampling a dozen or so articles on Dissident Voice, they seem to fall into three categories: opinion pieces, reporting from advocacy groups or their representatives, and articles by guest journalists or authors. For an opinion piece, to the extent that the author is notable and recognized as an expert on the topic being written about, Wikipedia could quote it with proper attribution to describe that author's viewpoint. The articles by advocacy groups (example) or their representatives (exampe) may consist of well-thought-out analysis but would be no different than primary sources using Dissident Voice as a vehicle for publication, in a similar manner of press releases. Finally there are articles published by guest journalists or book authors (example journalist, example news service, example author) that may blur the line between an editorial and actual news reporting, and in some cases are well-researched, which should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. They have a failed fact-check and they're practically never referenced by
  other sources for facts. Seems more like a partisan newsletter or blog than a credible news site. Dr. Swag Lord (talk
  ) 03:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: That Snopes article doesn't say what you claim. Rather, it says Dissident Voice filed a piece as "satire". That doesn't qualify as "failing" a fact-check. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  Anachronist, Satire or not, Snopes clearly says that the transcript was false and it first appeared on Dissident Voice. Snopes, for example, frequently gives false fact-checks to the The Babylon Bee, despite it being a well-known satire website. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3. as per Anachronist. The most recent articles include ones aggregated or reposted from
  Centre for Research on Globalization (GlobalResearch, a conspiracy site) and Mickey Z's Facebook page(!), or opinion pieces. BobFromBrockley (talk
  ) 17:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 One of the hallmarks of reliability is that other reliable sources consider them reliable. I see no evidence of that. --Jayron32 17:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. Appears to be mainly a
  WP:TERTIARY source. ––FormalDude talk
  09:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• See related content dispute discussion at Talk:Democracy Now!#Article full-protected. ~Anachronist (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Note that one of 142.254.114.23 recent revisions on the Democracy Now! talk page has him pushing Syrian Chemical attacks denialism and pro-Assad conspiracy theories. ^[1]Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Jaydoggmarco is Incorrect. I am citing sources which make statements consistent with the following Associated Press article regarding alleged gas attacks in Syria: https://apnews.com/article/chemical-weapons-syria-archive-aleppo-04f6a88cb89098925d5ca2ee2d09d74b - Regardless let's please stick to the task of assessing Dissident Voice --142.254.114.23 (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

In the talk page, some editors do not acknowledge the various historians who write in books about this battle. And they say that historians do not care what they write about books. So I would ask someone to say if these are reliable sources. These are writers Caroline Finkel, John Julius Norwich, Richard C. Hall, Sedlar Jean W. Thank you. See talk page [[67]].93.138.142.12 (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

See

wp:or, it is not enough to prove it exists, it has to say what you want to say.Slatersteven (talk

) 11:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Note one source up for discussion is King Vukasin and the disastrous Battle of Marica By Vladislav Boskovic, which may be a vanity press publication. Does anyone know anything about it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• No - Editorial policy is non-existent (or unknown). The people in charge of the site are not mentioned either. Treat it as a blog: use it for the most uncontroversial of purposes. Coverage in the website fails to count towards
  WP:N. TrangaBellam (talk
  ) 08:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Disagree with your attempt to target feminism-related sources wholesale. Please discuss each use-case with the material and article proposed to be used, or specific cases as per the general policy instructions given for this Noticeboard. I think that each article, and its claims that you wish to use as a reference should be fact-checked instead. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  AshLin, your accusations are not substantiated. Please stay on the topic and explain how Women's Republic passes NEWSORG. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  TrangaBellam You are clearly attempting to invalidate sources wholesale for a particular article or series of articles, I suggest linking to that article/articles so we can see the context in which these sources are being used. It is quite unusual that a source that a serious user posts would be invalid in all circumstances, therefore reliability is contingent on the use being made of the source and questions of notability. This appears to be more of a content dispute than an issue for this board. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  It is quite unusual that a source that a serious user posts would be invalid in all circumstances - What does this line even mean? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  The locus of the discussion is simple. Can a website, which does not disclose their editorial policy or mention the involved people, be treated as a reliable source? Not as difficult, as you are making it to be. If you are bothered about particular use-cases, does this interview count towards

  WP:N? TrangaBellam (talk

  ) 08:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Let me elucidate. It's actually quite rare for a source which is completely unreliable to be added to a page. Almost everything used as a source on here is reliable to support something, even if that something shouldn't be in the article. If you don't give the context of what it is being used to support it is almost impossible to give you an answer.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  And, I gave you a context? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Besides not following the policy instructions of this notice-board, User:TrangaBellam is attempting to influence an AFD by getting the sources of its citations declared as non:RS. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  More misplaced comments. There is not a single policy which forbids bringing disputed sources at AfD to RSN. Discussions (even RfCs) are regularly held for sources without any particular use-case. See the ongoing RfC for Jacobin, The Sydney Morning Herald, The New Zealand Herald etc. Many such broad RfCs are also linked from

  WP:RSP. TrangaBellam (talk

  ) 09:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  You are right that there is no policy regarding this, but bringing the sources here before nominating for deletion would have been better. As the subject clearly has significant coverage in these sources, a consensus here that one or more of them were reliable sources would have satisfied

  WP:GNG and meant that AFD nomination was unreasonable. There is no mention at the talk page of any concerns about sourcing, and there should not have been a nomination for deletion without starting a discussion regarding sourcing, as the unreliability of these sources is the only plausible grounds for deletion. Boynamedsue (talk

  ) 09:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  If you're done opining on every other thing in a circular manner (which belongs at AfD), maybe you can argue about this particular source? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  It's definitely reliable for the opinions of the writers, if they are notable enough, that could confer notability. As for the intrinsic notability of this source, I am unsure, and waiting to read what other users have to say. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Every source is reliable for the opinions of the writers. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Adequate specific proof has not been shown of how the content on the website is consistently unreliable, hence my view is status quo. Individual content issues can be discussed in

  WP:CONTENT. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk

  ) 12:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  More specifically, does this interview contribute to WP:N of Sulagna Chatterjee? You seem to have missed that. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Page:

Entry:

Sources:

• Brian Dunning, Skeptoid
• Hidden Animals: A Field Guide to Batsquatch, Chupacabra... By Michael Newton
• Offut, Jason (2019). Chasing American Monsters. Minnesota: Llewellyn Publications. pp. 113–114. ISBN 978-0-7387-5995-1.
• Misc news coverage e.g. Cincinnati.com, Fox19.com

We're having a bit of a disagreement on sourcing for

I don't believe this is a correct reading of our guidelines. This RSN discussion about Dunning was from only 4 months ago, and appears to conclude that Dunning (and skeptoid) are a reliable source for this kind of content.

I also believe that, as a list page, we're only citing the existence and notability of the entry, and that can be done without appealing to our policies on promulgating pseudoscience and quackery. Each of these entries have their own wikipedia article which should have higher sourcing standards than just listing them on what amounts to a category page. Input would be appreciated, as I don't feel we're making progress as is. Pinging User:Elmidae and User:Nayerb as other participants.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Fringe proponents do not make for reliable sources and, further, do not misquote me. This again? First, I have at no point said we require sources solely from folklorists, so go ahead and strike that out. While adherents of the subculture fixate on a handful of monsters (like Bigfoot and Mokele-mbembe) that folklorists do write about, the subculture also bumps into fields like biology, as the writings of biologist Donald Prothero make very clear (his well-known Abominable Science! is dedicated to the subculture/pseudoscience). Folklorists, biologists, and anthropologists write about cryptozoologists and their subculture/pseudoscience. That is, when adherents and the subculture are notable enough to draw their attention. It's a tiny but Very Online subculture that has historically attempted to coop English Wikipedia as a promotional outlet for its purposes, as fringe subcultures so often do.

For readers unfamiliar with this subculture, cryptozoology is quite closely connected to Young Earth creationism (cf. Cryptozoology#Young_Earth_creationism) and a variety of other fringe movements. Like other fringe subcultures (such as, topically, anti-vaxxers or Flat Earthers), it has long had a reputation for its aggression towards mainstream science and mainstream scholarship (you'll see examples of this aggression from adherents associated with these articles on Wikipedia, too), and misrepresentation. Cryptozoologists have historically frequently presented themsleves as pith hat-wearing experts to media outlets and in turn media sources have also long uncritically echoed claims from adherents (cf. Cryptozoology#Lack_of_critical_media_coverage). Cryptozoologists are also notorious for "hunting" for monsters they've read about in works like The Monster of "Partridge Creek". There are no standards in these circles.

So, as anywhere else on the site, and in particular regarding fringe and pseudoscience topics, it's obviously of high importance that we require commentary from experts and fortunately that's exactly the case (cf.

WP:FRIND

here:

Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.

In fact, we cite scholars throughout our coverage of the pseudoscience/subculture of

Loveland Frog

. They don't treat monsters as Pokémon to be hunted but chart the often complex reasons for their development and explore the broader cultural landscape surrounding them. As anywhere else, if there's reliable no coverage, it's just not notable enough for inclusion.

The big issue with list of cryptids has always been that literally every entity in the folklore record is perceived as (or at least described as) a Pokémon-like critter to be 'found' by a small circle of cryptozoologists somewhere on the internet (who referred to them internal to the subculture as "cryptids", a term coined by the subculture to avoid the word the rest of us use—"monster"), with a significant amount of subculutre members hellbent on finding "proof" that those darned atheist are so very wrong about evolution. This is why it's important to keep that list restricted to the creatures the subculture has historically particularly fixated on, like the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot. It's a magnet for poor sourcing and drive-by edits. The list is also a focal point for subculture adherents, who have historically attempted to organize off-site to change it and related articles to what they'd prefer (again, typical for these kinds of articles).

Now, editors all too often pop up out of the blue and attempt to lower our sourcing standards on fringe articles on the site. They often want us to cite adherents for 'balance'. One wonders why they're not instead asking for higher standards rather than lower—for which there is an obvious answer. But maybe a better question is why do we still have list of cryptids when the entire topic can simply be handled better in a paragraph or two at cryptozoology?

As for the podcast website from a 'skeptic', this is an obvious

WP:RS fail. Pinging editors who have extensively edited articles I've mentioned above (and mother others in this space): @Tronvillain:, @Dlthewave:, and @LuckyLouie: :bloodofox: (talk

) 19:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agree that we should preference scholarly articles but Disagree that we should exclude sources like Skeptoid. We need to trust consistency and follow consensus. RSN discussions have said Skeptoid is an RS. It's not in-universe, therefore it is also independent. News sources which are not directly relying on cryptozoologists would also apply as independent RSes. Just because we preference scholarly sources does not mean we don't use non-scholarly independent RSes. We can avoid using the sources of adherents, but still use non-scholarly sources for determining what is
  WP:DUE. Scholarly sources are better, and it matters that these monsters are not mentioned in them. But that is not the only thing that matters.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}
  ) 19:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Shibbolethink. I don't think the list concept is particularly helpful, and agree with Bloodofox generally. But Skeptoid is a data point that can be considered; even having said that, I don't think a reference there is enough to establish notability, though it could be part of the picture. Cheers and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Let me go ahead and point out that Skeptoid, a podcast, has absolutely no editorial board or any kind of fact-checking, and its driving force,

WP:RS fail to me and the above linked discussion never went anywhere. :bloodofox: (talk

) 20:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Some editors like to keep these types of RS-failing sources around to cite when it's convenient.

talk

) 20:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

But there are a number of RSes that seem to treat him as an expert...Smithsonian Magazine[68], Popular Mechanics, on several occasions, e.g.[69], LiveScience[70], Snopes, for whatever that is worth now. Again, if consensus is against me, that's fine. But though he's not an A+ source, he strikes me as enough of an expert in the weird and woo. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Note that Skeptoid is not just a podcast. It's a website containing a print article on the topic which may have been derived from the podcast [71]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• There are apparently several sources beyond the ones mentioned that are used in the frog article, including a folklorist. I don't see why the sources that justify the article don't also justify the list inclusion? Can't you just replace the questionable sources with the folklorist/news media coverage to justify the inclusion on the list?
  talk
  ) 20:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the sources in question do not mention the subculture, which is ultimately pretty obscure. (Note however that here's long been a push by subculture members to insert references to cryptozoology—and the subculture's word for monsters, "cryptid"—into every nook and cranny of the English Wikipedia.) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Then it looks like the issue is about suppressing this interpretation "Some dictionaries and encyclopedias define the term "cryptid" as an animal whose existence is unsubstantiated." in favor of the "Pokemon hunter" version. But if the definition is ambiguous, it makes sense to include the frog thing on the monster list, rather than exclude on the basis of favoring one interpretation, in my view.

talk

) 20:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The term in reality means, as OED puts it, "any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist". FYI, scholars don't use the subculture's emic term, "cryptid", except when discussing the subculture: See extensive discussion at Cryptozoology#Terminology,_history,_and_approach. This is because "cryptid" implies a monster is 'hidden' (and therefore waiting to be found). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with Bloodofox that cryptozoologist and
  WP:FRIND source, and is especially usable when folklorists and people like Donald Prothero have not commented on a topic. - LuckyLouie (talk
  ) 20:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• I'm with LuckyLouie: We need to use quality sources, and Skeptoid is acceptable if better sources can't be found. I would add that the distinction between "cryptids" and creatures of legend/myth/folklore is important. We can't just add any and all folkloric entities to the list; they have to be of interest to people who are searching for them in earnest. –dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

discussion break 1

• Consensus so far appears to be that skeptoid is reliable for this. Aside from that, I'm seeing a few voices suggest that we should be using "quality sources", and of course I agree with that; we should be using the best available. A personal blog, for instance, doesn't cut it. But a published book by a Cryptozoologist should be sufficient to source the claim that Cryptozoologists believe a creature falls into their subject. It obviously is not enough to cite claims about the creature's existence in reality, or discuss the reliability of reports. But our content guidelines make it clear that "John Smith believes X" can be cited to John Smith. So "Cryptozoologists call this frog a cryptid" should be citable to a published work by a Cryptozoologist which does exactly that. We should of course use the best available, and when academic works are available, we should prefer them. Since these articles ostensibly have reliable sources establishing notability (some may not, and should be deleted... but that's another topic), we should be able to use a source from their full article to back up their being listed here. It would be a weird standard to say we can write a full article on the topic, and call them a cryptid in that article, but not point to it in a list.   — Jess· Δ♥ 11:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

At the end of the day of course we should use the best sources, but sometimes we have to use Crap sources if we are representing the views of those crap sources. As long as we attribute it and do not present it as fact, but as opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

So, if one cryptozoologist had once a thought "oh, this seems to be a cryptid!" and immediately wrote it down and published it, and if nobody ever agreed or even disagreed with him, it would end up in a Wikipedia list? This is one of the things

WP:PRIMARY was made to prevent. --Hob Gadling (talk

) 11:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Where I said "a published book by a Cryptozoologist", I wasn't referring to primary sources. For instance: Hidden Animals: A Field Guide to Batsquatch, Chupacabra... (pg 163 for the frog) is a secondary source. Of course, if we only have one single source that ever mentions a topic, it doesn't meet our guidelines on notability. But we're talking about subjects that do meet

WP:N, and have full articles covering them already.   — Jess· Δ♥

11:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

No, as this would be one view and thus might fail

wp:undue. But if a number of sources said it (and they are all cryptozoologists) then yes it should be included.Slatersteven (talk

) 12:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRIND makes a good case for avoiding sourcing a topic or claim to a fringe source when independent sources have not taken notice of it. - LuckyLouie (talk

) 14:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• No, books by cryptozoologists should absolutely not be considered reliable sources for a list like this, or anything. They're fringe, and a list cataloging all fringe claims is promotion of fringe. If independent sources, at least on the level of Skeptoid and higher, haven't taken notice of it, a list on Wikipedia doesn't need to be ballooned to lend credibility to cryptozoology—there are cryptid wikis and webpages for that. --tronvillain (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

What claim are we citing, exactly? I am in strong support for meeting

WP:N to create these articles and citing an array of independent sources to do so. These articles are covered in published books, news coverage, and quite a bit more, depending on the article. Any article which doesn't meet that burden should be deleted. What we're talking about here is pointing to them in a list. In what context is a topic cited well enough enough to have an article, but not cited well enough to be referenced in a list of articles about its topic? I don't see how we should have higher sourcing standards for a list of articles than for the articles themselves.   — Jess· Δ♥

12:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think maybe the premise of the list is the problem, i.e. the list is intended to catalogue anything a small minority have ever called a "cryptid". However since publications by that small minority do not meet

WP:DUE, they can't be used. This confusion and conflict has resulted in things like Flatwoods monster being catalogued in our list under "animals", when there is no indication anyone anywhere is searching seriously for what was basically an optical illusion experienced by overexcited residents. Bloodofox is right when he infers that such a list caters to a decentralized minority subculture promoting a deprecated POV, because it reflects how anyone who says they are a cryptozoologist wants to catalogue things, rather than what the bulk of independent sources say about these things. I believe he is also right about merging the list to the main article. After pruning out the pop culture-driven and thinly-sourced cryptids, the list would reflect only the most notable "cryptids" within cryptozoology, such as Bigfoot, Nessie, etc. as determined by high quality sources. I think a list of creatures that a minority subculture has pursued is very appropriate to an article about that minority subculture. Lastly, I came across this old merger proposal that was never closed but leans toward support. Some interesting perspective, if anyone wants to read through the discussion. - LuckyLouie (talk

) 16:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying completely, Louie, but I disagree that the list isn't a topic that is notable in its own right. There are a large variety of "list of cryptid" works out there, and in addition, allowing our readers to navigate the topic fully is also a benefit to our coverage. A compilation of the articles we have on cryptids does that.

Regarding the

Flatwoods Monster

, I see no mention of "cryptid" or "cryptozoology" anywhere in our coverage; I assume the same is true for the sources, so it should be removed from the list. It absolutely makes sense to prune the list to only creatures which are referenced as cryptids. My objection to the original edits is that they were pruning creatures which are referenced as cryptids everywhere they are covered.

There have been several mentions of "what anyone who wants to call themselves a Cryptozoologist says... vs independent sources". I don't think that's in dispute. If independent secondary sources are covering the topic, we should prefer them over a self titled Cryptozoologist. Obviously. But what is in dispute is what to do when we don't have that kind of coverage (like skeptoid), and only have works of Cryptozoologists. I don't think its our job to vet Cryptozoologists, and where they call themselves by that title, write books covering the topic, and are referenced elsewhere as such, it's only our job to summarize their views (with due weight).   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think an Rfc survey is in order for this, to lay the arguments out and get some outside eyes to weigh in.

talk

) 22:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment. I'll migrate discussion back to the talk page, and start an RfC about inclusion criteria as necessary. Thanks for the input!   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Is Ronen Bergman's Rise and Kill First a reliable source for Wikipedia, and in particular for Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners, where he is cited with attribution? It seems obviously so, with rave reviews everywhere, but two new editors disagree. See here. Third party input is required.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem that he caught at least on one inaccuracy [72] . He writes about Wagner that he was in Germany during WW2 and apparently that not true. So I am not sure if we can trust him on other stuff Shrike (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, the problem here is that Bergman -en passant- mentions things which happened in the early 1940s; but he never (AFAIK) interviewed those who were involved then (I assume most are long since dead). IOW: he would have to rely on third hand accounts. When it comes to what happened in Lebanon in the 1980s, we have a completely different situation: Bergman inteviewed those who were directly involved. Did they lie to him? Possibly, but AFAIK: no

WP:RS has claimed that. Huldra (talk

) 22:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

How would anyone be able to do that, when at least with regards to the claims made about the FLLF, he doesn't name those who spoke to him? Inf-in MD (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Bergman spoke to Meir Dagan, among others. (Yes; he has since died; but that is hardly Bergmans fault), Huldra (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

And Dagan strenuously denied that the FLLF was targeting anything but military targets, a fact that was completely missing from the article until I pointed it out, and even now does not get equal weight to the accusations against him. But I was referring to the other quotes in the relevant passages - "One Mossad officer of the time said", "Another Mossad man who was in Lebanon at the time said,". Anonymous sources we know nothing about, so obviously neither they nor 3rd parties could step up and confirm or deny. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC) "

Lol, "military targets" had a rather wide meaning for Dagan, when we see what FLLF actually targeted, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC),

Shrike. What happened there is that you accepted - and it is pretty obvious - Bergman as a reliable source for one particular datum, and cited him. You had zero problems with him as a source. On that particular point, Bergman, as Zero's edit indicated - happened to be wrong. Every diligent reader know that errata crop up in the best historical works. That's what reviews show. If a review can list a large number of errors, then that makes an RS's automatic reliability questionable. By that criterion, Walter Burkert's magisterial Homo Necans would be unusable because he made an error in citing a Greek verb on p.76. RidiculousNishidani (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani, I thought he was reliable source and was mistaken and I accepted my error. These source was not used for citing some Greek verb Its historical fact that you want to use it for. Shrike (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

+1 to what Shrike wrote, but there are also other issues: Bergman is a published in a popular, non-peer-reviewed press, and relies extensively on anonymous sources so there's no way to ascertain his claims. At a minimum, any claim based on his book should be qualified as "according to Bergman", not stated as fact. Contrary to what's stated by the original poster, that's not currently the situation in the article mentioned above - Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners - For example, the following is stated as fact without attribution - 'An officer chosen by Yehoshua Sagi determined the truth of the gravamen of the complaint – that Eitan together with the head of Israel's northern command, Ben-Gal, Shlomo Ilya, an intelligence officer, and Dagan had deceived the government by hiding Israel's role in FLLF operations – was true" Inf-in MD (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Inf-in MD what you did above is called a self-goal. You stated:-

any claim based on his book should be qualified as "according to Bergman", not stated as fact . . For example, the following is stated as fact without attribution - 'An officer chosen by Yehoshua Sagi determined the truth of the gravamen of the complaint – that Eitan together with the head of Israel's northern command, Ben-Gal, Shlomo Ilya, an intelligence officer, and Dagan had deceived the government by hiding Israel's role in FLLF operations – was true".

That has nothing to do with Bergman (though he endorses the fact). In our article that paraphrasesanother source by Amir Oren, and refers to a well known fact attested by other scholars.

The complaint named four people who it said were partners in deceiving the government (and Military Intelligence): Eitan, then the IDF chief of staff; Avigdor “Yanush” Ben-Gal, the head of Northern Command; his intelligence officer, Shlomo Ilya; and Dagan. The head of Military Intelligence, Yehoshua Saguy, appointed an officer to look into the matter, and the accusations made in the complaint proved true. Begin didn’t want to believe it, especially on the eve of an election. *Oren, Amir (20 May 2016). "Meir Dagan's Most Daring War Was the One He Helped Prevent". Haaretz.

So, stop sowing confusion here: the talk page is bad enough. Let's wait for third party input.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That statement is sourced to Bergman in our article as well, and is of course not the only example. The entire first paragraph of the article, after the lead

"The FLLF was set up in 1979 in the wake of the massacre of an Israeli family at Nahariya by militants belonging to the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF).[2] To that end, Maronite Christian, Shiite and Druze operatives were recruited in 1979. The operations which it carried out against the Palestinian Liberation Organization in Lebanon were coordinated by Meir Dagan, reportedly without informing the IDF, the Israeli Defense Ministry, the Israeli government and its various defense agencies.[a] David Agmon at the time head of Israel's northern command was one of the few people who were briefed on its operations[2]. The aim of the series of operations was to: cause chaos among the Palestinians and Syrians in Lebanon, without leaving an Israeli fingerprint, to give them the feeling that they were constantly under attack and to instill them with a sense of insecurity.[2]"

is sourced exclusively to Bergman, but is provided as fact, unattributed, in the encyclopedia's voice. That does not square with your presentation of the issue, above as if it was "in particular for Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners, where he is cited with attribution? " Inf-in MD (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable Reviews NYT, Intercept, JPS. Best seller, prize winning author, yada yada, self-evidently reliable so I think it is better to ask whether the source is reliable for something specific.Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Has Bergman been criticised by other reliable sources, were any major inaccuracies found? If not we should assume it's okay to cite him. Given the nature of his sources I would attribute his claims rather than stating them in wiki-voice. It seems that it's more of a due weight issue: Bergman's claims should be used alongside other reliable sources (I have no idea if they confirm or contradict his account). Alaexis_¿question? 20:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, Bergman himself acknowledges that not only could there be inaccuracies in the book that he is unable to verify, but that he was likely being used by his interviewees to promote possibly fictional narratives:

"Perhaps most strikingly, Rise and Kill First is in certain ways a postmodern masterpiece. Because his work is unauthorized, Bergman candidly acknowledges its potential inaccuracies and the motivating biases of his sources. “It is clear,” he writes, “that some politicians and intelligence personnel—two professions highly skilled in manipulation and deception—were trying to use me as the conduit for their preferred version of events, or to shape history to suit themselves.” While Bergman made efforts to verify those accounts independently, it’s impossible for the reader to know whether any particular story is real, fictional, or embellished.

[73] Inf-in MD (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, trying to throw sand in editors' eyes. Michael M. Rosen is a San Diego attorney. He wrote a view of Bergman, criticizing Bergman for subscribing to ‘the dated and dubious conventional wisdom that Israeli settlements in the West Bank violate international law.’ Since when? That is the default position of the ICC and international law. Perhaps he hasn't heard that in San Diego. In his review Preemptive Self-Defense? Israel uses controversial, extrajudicial tactics to target its enemies. Claremont Review of Books 14 January 2019 he states that Bergman was aware some of his (1,000+) Israeli insider/informants might have tried to manipulate him, and that Bergman strove therefore the verify their accounts independently. I.e. he was subject to a risk of informant bias, and did what historians or anthropologists or journalists are trained to do, read for spin, and sort out the facts by cross-checking to avoid potential inaccuracies. It’s Rosen’s spin that what he admits is a ‘meticulously researched intelligence tell-all’ is 'postmodernist'. Nothing to do with postmodernism except in the attorney's imagination. Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(1) stop the personal attacks (2) a request was made for reliable sources criticizing the book, and that is what I have provided. That you don't agree with the criticism is immaterial. The gist of the criticism is "it’s impossible for the reader to know whether any particular story is real, fictional, or embellished." - and that has nothing to to with the critic being a lawyer, or what the ICC says about Israeli settlements Inf-in MD (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis No to your first question. No to your second. If you click through the edit sequence at German Templer colonies in Palestine beginning here, you should begin to grasp the double standard here used by User:Shrike and User:Inf-in M (who by the way was editing a page he had no right to per ARBPIA3 at the time). In brief, both editors never challenged the use of Bergman for citing the idea that the German assassinated by Jewish militants was a Nazi. However, once the topic changed, when Bergman was used to document Israeli terrorism in Lebanon, both Shrike and Inf-in M changed tactics. There, they said, Bergman wasn't reliable? On what grounds? Because Zero had initially challenged his reliability for the specific datum re the German Templar. So this objection is frivolous, well, frankly, cynical. They accept Bergman if he documents a murdered German was a Nazi, but not if Bergman quotes Israeli operatives admitting they organized a proxy terror group in Lebanon in the 1980s.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(1) Don't move my comments so that you can place yours ahead of them. (2) Don't misrepresent my editing (or zero's) on German Templer colonies in Palestine. As anyone can see, What Zero removed was the well known fact that Wagner was a Nazi collaborator, while leaving Bergman in as a source, - [74]. I did not add nor remove Bergman, or argue for or against his inclusion, but simply sourced the contested materiel from other sources - JTA[75] and the BBC[76]. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Please desist from changing a request for external input into a polemic. No one will read this if you or I keep intervening. Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

So you just want external input, eh? What this all about then - [77]? "Rules for thee but not for me"? Inf-in MD (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Use with care. Thanks for responding to my questions. I think the right thing to do is to use it with care, Specifically, I mean explicit attribution and cross-checking each claim with other reliable sources. If, for a given claim, there are no other sources it's probably better to refrain from adding it. Alaexis_¿question? 07:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. It has been used parsimoniously, with care. The specific material on the FLLF is sourced by quotes and paraphrases directly from eyewitnesses or insiders directly privy to the operation. We also use attribution. We use three sources that confirm that operation existed. An official prime ministerial investigation confirmed it in 1981. Your remark is being interpreted as a warrant to exclude 'material for which he is the only source.' You'd better clarify that: because it gives a new wikipedian support for his idea that our remit extends to excising anything not directly supported by multiple informants in a book that won the
  National Jewish Book Award as the best publication of the genre of historical writing about Jewish history published in 2018. Attribution is the norm here, not the concession of a right by editors to judge, which the above comment suggests, where a passage here or there in a book, is adequately sourced. On two occasions in the past Israeli journalists reporting this episode had their work suppressed by the military censor, not because it was false, but because it was an embarrassment. We are not supposed to arrogate to ourselves as editors a similar role on wikipedia.Nishidani (talk
  ) 13:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment While all this back and forth is mildly interesting, it remains the case that the best way to "refute" a source is to bring contradictory sources for balance rather than attempting to shoot the messenger. The source is very well known, if there are things in it that are controversial, I am certain that someone, somewhere will have written about that.Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable if used with care as all books of this genre should be. Bergman is a well known and highly respected journalist, considered to be one of Israel's premier journalists on security matters. Unfortunately, the book contains background about the 1940s that relies on uncited material that is not always accurate. One case identified by me is mentioned above and I know of another case that I have communicated with Bergman about. On the other hand, the content which is relevant to this present case is the result of Bergman's interviews with military/intelligence people in a position to know the truth and there is absolutely no reason to suspect that Bergman has misrepresented what his interviewees told him. Also note that the key point was confirmed even earlier by another respected Israeli journalist (Oren, see the article). The proper response for those who don't like to read this stuff is to find reliable sources that dispute it, not to argue endlessly for its suppression. Zero ^talk 02:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll also mention that Bergman's revelations are really not all that extraordinary if one knows the history of the conflict. There wasn't much shock and horror at the news, more of a yawn actually. Zero^talk 15:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• On the same page as Alaexis and Zero. nableezy - 22:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable as per Zero. Alaexis's point is well-taken: to exercise care to add other sources, and cross-check, though there is no controversy about the substance of his oral-testimonies-based reconstruction of this episode, and a large range of multiple references underline his conclusion. So Alaexis's conditions have been met. Bergman is particularly reliable in representing what Israeli intelligence sources say they did, or heard, which is the case here, as a clear majority concede, including also Huldra, Nableezy,Selfstudier (not opposed), myself, making 6 against 2 (Inf-in MD,Shrike). We can close this.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  Alaexis's "conditions" are not what you state above. What he stated is that materiel sourced only to Bergman should be excluded, and material sourced to Bergman and others should be explicitly attributed. Inf-in MD (talk)

What I tried to say was that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and if there are no other sources than Bergman for such claims they probably should be left out. It's not clear from this thread which claims are sourced to him and anyway I'm not really qualified to opine on whether they are exceptional or not. Alaexis_¿question? 19:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not an exceptional claim, since it was stated independently of Bergman. The only thing Bergman added to an historical record of (a) an internal investigation by Sagi, ordered by Menachem Begin, which affirmed the rumour was true in 1981 ( b) independent research by journalists in 2009 and (c) in 2016 outlined some details so that (d)Bergman in 2018 merely completed the picture by interviewing at least 3 Israel military and intelligence official personally involved in, indeed some actually planning and executing, the carbombings. The fact was ascertained, all Bergman did was elicit admissions by the actors involved. So by definition Bergman's matter makes no exceptional claims. It is no longer a claim but an ascertained historical fact. This thread is extremely confusing: the evidence on the article page, to the contrary, is rocksolid, though duly noted perspectively, and under attribution. The only exceptional claim here is that of the plaintiff, in so far as anyone can understand the reasoning, which for me only shows, perhaps due to inexperience with editing, un familiarity with how Wikipedia works. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

If that was true, it would be possible to source all this alleged "rocksolid" historical record to better sources- academic ones, peer reviewed books, multiple mainstream journalism . But as it stands , the article's first section which recounts the history of the FLLF , relies exclusively on Bergman. Inf-in MD (talk)

Read the article for once, and stop complaining. It is documented by multiple crosschecked sources even beyond what the average requirement on Wikipedia stipulates.Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You should try reading it. The article's first section which recounts the history of the FLLF relies exclusively on Bergman. Inf-in MD (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Bergman is reliable with attribution, I would also note that there is no such thing as an error free work of non-fiction... Its more a platonic ideal than something actually achievable by mortal writers and editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I am writing a section to add to an article and have been asked by an admin to test here for an assessment of the reliability of the left progressive news site Black Agenda Report, which has no Wiki entry and has not yet been tested for reliability. My query is not to determine whether this source has strong points of view, but whether, regardless of its perspective, it puts forward reliable facts and statements.

Black Agenda Report, at https://blackagendareport.com , is an online news and opinion source which publishes reports and critiques on news and political figures. How should we assess its reliability?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being
  generally reliable
  .
• Option 2: There is
  no consensus or additional considerations apply
  .
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being
  generally unreliable
  in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

--142.254.114.23 (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (BAR)

• Option 2. This publication was run by Glen Ford (journalist) until he passed away last month. He was a journalist with an agenda but as far as I can tell he was respected for journalistic integrity that carried over into Black Agenda Report. In that sense, Black Agenda Report seems generally reliable in the same sense that Mother Jones (magazine) is considered generally reliable, albeit biased. My main concern is that there appear to be opinion pieces mixed together with reporting, with no designation to tell which is which without reading them carefully. They also publish articles written by representatives of various advocacy groups, which are essentially primary sources. To the extent that the views of one of these groups need to be verified, these articles could be cited with proper attribution. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. It's a fairly radical/fringe site.
  Uyghur genocide denialism and are affiliated with the deprecated Grayzone [79]. Also, they were included on a list of websites that promoted Russian propaganda during the 2016 election (though, in fairness, the list has received some criticism) [80] [81]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk
  ) 21:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 -- Only reliable for attributed statements to experts, not otherwise reliable. There is too much of a history of this site repeating propaganda and misinformation to call it reliable for anything else.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Too many unreliable stories and misinformation for them to be considered a realiable source. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. The articles like this one do not inspire confidence. Alaexis_¿question? 05:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 -- Only reliable for attributed statements to experts per Shibbolethink. ––FormalDude talk 09:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, although I’m a little less liberal than some of the others and would not use them for statements attributed to experts because of the rather obvious concerns about cherrypicking that come with a biased source. Sure the expert said that, but what else did they say? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (BAR)

• See related content dispute discussion at Talk:Democracy Now!#Article full-protected. ~Anachronist (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

--142.254.114.23 (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

References to Bellingcat critiques seem pretty misplaced here. Bellingcat receives both funding and other support from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is well known for its strong bias in supporting US National Security State and State Department objectives. --142.254.114.23 (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

- DR. Swag Lord, can you point to a link showing that BAR is 'affiliated' with Grayzone?

- Shibbolethink, can you give examples of the 'propaganda' and 'misinformation'?

- Alaexis, can you specify what you find questionable in the article you cited. I've followed the Ethiopian conflict very closely and have found it to be very complex, with both sides of the conflict warranting allegations of wrongdoing, making it very difficult to 'pick a side'. .--142.254.114.23 (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't followed it closely but it's my impression too that the conflict is very complex. In the article that I linked BAR are making statements that portray only one side as villains: "Tigray People's Liberation Front, or TPLF, ruled Ethiopia brutally from 1991 to 2018 with a paper-thin guise of democracy and ethnic unity", "The TPLF secured elite U.S. interests in Ethiopia", "Last November the TPLF attacked a federal army base in Tigray, launching an ongoing civil war to overthrow Prime Minister Abiy." Alaexis_¿question? 10:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to say BAR is "affiliated" with GZ, but there is an overlap of contributors (at least two GZ editors write for BAR; at least one BAR editor has been interviewed twice by GZ) and BAR often cites GZ's reporting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The charity rating site GreatNonprofits, on which we have an article here, is used on dozens of articles, primarily on non-profits, where the organization's placement on the list on "top-rated nonprofits" is included among the ratings. Examples:

• Boot Campaign: "GreatNonprofits has named Boot Campaign a Top Rated charity annually since 2013, which requires an organization to earn at least 10 four-star reviews each year. Boot Campaign has more than 120 reviews with an overall average rating of five stars."
• Cambodian Children's Fund "In 2016, GreatNonProfits included CCF in their list of "2016 Top Rated Nonprofits"."
• GCFLearnFree.org "GreatNonprofits, a provider of user reviews about nonprofit organizations, named GCFLearnFree.org a 2014 Top-Rated Nonprofit based on reviews submitted by people who volunteer for or use the website."

Now, I'm certainly not claiming that the site is not a reliable source for the fact of what is on its own list. There is a real

(Both above quotes come from their About page for their awards.)

I'm seeking one of three possible outcomes:

1. Inclusion on the websites list of top-rated nonprofits is sufficient for that rating to be included in an article,
2. mention of the top-rated nonprofits rating can be made if and only if there are reliable, third-party sources (i.e., not GreatNonprofits or the charity itself) making mention of it.
3. the placement on the list of top-rated nonprofits should not be mentioned in an article at all (barring some larger context regarding the rating, such as external controversy over the rating.)

Your (top-rated) insight is requested. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it reliable if it's based on user generated reviews. As an analogy,

WP:RSP

. The same should be true for GreatNonProfits. User reviews should not be used here.

I like what the US Government does. When I worked for the government, we could choose from a list of nonprofit organizations for donating a portion of our paychecks. The qualification for a charity to get on that list was simple and objective: No more than 25% of the charity's revenue could be spent on salaries or administrative costs, at least 75% of the money they collected had to be used for the benefit of the charity's stated beneficiaries. The list made no distinction about the cause: left wing, right ling, gay, straight, pro-life, pro-abortion, anarchist, whatever, as long as they met the simple objective requirement for inclusion. It's been a couple of decades since I worked there, but to this day that has been my filter: If a charity keeps more than 25% of their revenue or doesn't disclose it, I ignore them. That bit of information should be a key fact stated in any articles we have about charities. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say it isn’t usable for our purposes, not thats its necessarily inaccurate per say its just not what we would consider a

WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 15:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Probably Yes - There's a famed journalist at the helm and no immediate red-flags. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Disagree with your attempt to target feminism-related sources wholesale. Please discuss each use-case with the material and article proposed to be used, or specific cases as per the general policy instructions given for this Noticeboard. I think that each article, and its claims that you wish to use as a reference should be fact-checked instead. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I am targeting the source by asserting the source to be reliable and led by a famed journalist. Strange white-horsing for someone who took a fortnight to agree here. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• This seems to be a nomination of questionable-faith, randomly throwing in questioning of a source the user supports amidst a bunch of very targeted challenges of publications aimed at Indian women. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Based on my experience with the
  WP:N - it is a well-established and wide-reaching journalism platform. Also, per their Terms and Conditions, they clearly distinguish between advertising and content, i.e. "Sponsors have no control over the editorial content. If a sponsor is involved in our content or editorial we will make it clear." Beccaynr (talk
  ) 18:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• No - ET is a subsidiary of TOI, a news-organization notorious for paid news. See previous discussions on RSN. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - There may be considerations of bias in favour of India in international affairs, but this is a serious website relating to marketing/branding. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Did you read the linked RfC(s)? Ping Newslinger. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• The linked page does not suggest that it cannot be used as a reference. There is no reasonable suggestion of promotional content here (beyond any other newspaper profile/interview) and the content is uncontroversial and irrelevant to politics and history. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Did you read the article about Paid news in India? Anyways: On the genesis and flourish of paid news: The Indian Media Ecosystem, K. Hardinge, Goethe Working Papers, 2018, p. 17:
• ... By late 90s, the market was booming and filled with multiple magazines catering to different marketing audiences: Brand Equity, Impact, ... The TOI model would be fundamentally integrated with their revenue models, as the lines between outright advertising, paid promotion, and news got thinner. These magazines also provided an opportunity for new entrants in a variety of sectors to be ... TrangaBellam (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Independent? No, they don't always clearly mark what's sponsored content and what's not, undisclosed paid news is endemic in BCCL publications unfortunately. They shouldn't count towards notability, nor used in anything beyond the most unremarkable factual information though I'd stop a step before calling it generally unreliable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Does this piece published in both APAC News[82] and Michael West Media[83] support the statement on the page Australian Strategic Policy Institute:

In August 2021, ASPI was criticised by APAC News editor and Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein, for censorship of ASPI's own Wikipedia article using "sock puppet" accounts. Noting that "For ASPI there is no greater crisis than criticism, it appears, a level playing field can always be titled in its favour”.

From what I can tell APAC News is a blog both edited and published by Marcus Reubenstein and Michael West Media is a group blog primarily edited and published by Michael West (journalist). While APAC marks this as an opinion piece Michael West Media does not. To me neither source appears to be reliable and we also have a failed verification here because while the author heavily implies that they don’t strictly say it, although a reasonable reader would be left with that impression after reading it... The piece appears to advance the theory that the Waskerton sock cluster is being run by ASPI without actually presenting any evidence of it, they also misidentify Telsho as a Waskerton sock not an ineedtostopforgetting sock which may be the root of the error. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging the already involved @Burrobert, Ultranova1337, Onetwothreeip, Nick-D, El C, and 60.241.141.45: Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry if this is overly nuanced to the above ping, but stressing that I'm actually the
  WP:UNINVOLVED admin who protected the page and who also recommend to Horse Eye's Back that they should bring this matter here, to RSN (and to do so sooner rather than later). HTH! El_C
  17:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I forgot that the term had different connotations for an admin. A better choice of word would have been “aware” or similar, your interactions have been in a purely administrative role. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• The quote contains a misspelling which was also in the original. The correct word is "tilted", not "titled".
• I don't have a problem with the two sources. Michael West is an established journalist and the site that he founded has an editorial team. The writer Marcus Reubenstein has "twenty years of media experience" in various well-known media companies. The article is an opinion piece needing attribution, which has been correctly made.
• The Waskerton/ineedtostopforgetting error does not affect the writers argument. The point he was making was that the ASPI may have been using socks to curate the page. Whether there was one master or two masters does not hinder the argument.
• The wording may need some adjustment. A more accurate version of the first sentence would be something like "In August 2021, APAC News editor and Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein suggested ASPI may have been using Sock puppet accounts and other methods to censor its own Wikipedia article". I think "suggested" rather than "criticised" more accurately reflects the content of the article. The reason I have added "and other methods" is that Reubenstein's suggestion is not limited to the use of sock puppets. He also mentions "Wikisneaks". He points out that the article has been edited by two accounts which seem to have a direct connection with the subject (we note that on the talk-page). He also says content critical of ASPI has been "scrubbed" from the page soon after it has been added. He doesn't attribute that to the sock puppets.
• The second sentence is not a sentence so needs to be rewritten. However the quote is correct.

Burrobert (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a sidebar but how you know thats a misspelling? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• "a level playing field can always be titled in its favour" makes no sense
• "a level playing field can always be tilted in its favour" makes a lot of sense and conforms with the argument that the writer has been making throughout the article.
• "tilted" could easily be misspelt as "titled" as it only requires the transposition of two letters.

Burrobert (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that this is asking the wrong question. An opinion piece can be assumed to accurately reflect the views of its author(s). The author and operator of the website are both professional journalists, so there should be no problem here. The issue being discussed on the article's talk page is whether this is a notable opinion. I personally think that it is for the purposes of noting the commentary it provides on the Wikipedia article on that article's talk page (e.g. the 'in the media' template), but it does not warrant inclusion in the article proper. The Michael West Media site appears to fall under

WP:PARTISAN as it while it has professional journalists on staff, it does not include a statement of its editorial policies/processes and is openly campaigning on several issues. If what are clearly reliable sources pick this op-ed up, it might warrant inclusion in the article proper as being a notable opinion. Nick-D (talk

) 22:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: the problem with that would be that its not marked as opinion on Michael West Media, they’re running it as a featured news article. Its only marked as opinion (specifically commentary) on APAC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that all articles on the Michael West Media site are op-eds under the definitions set by Wikipedia's guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

They can’t all be, they have a journalist and a reporter on staff if their about us page is accurate[84]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not marked as opinion or commentary on the APAC website, where it has "comment" tagged. The source should be assessed on the basis of its presence in Michael West Media. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

”Comment” appears to mean “commentary” in that context, why would you say otherwise? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Michael West Media is not a "group blog", it is a fairly prominent Australian news website. The news website has a very clear point-of-view, but this does not exclude sources being used on Wikipedia, especially if it is to cite an opinion. The article is an accurate representation of Marcus Reubenstein's views on the subject, and is clearly a notable opinion. We do not need to discuss in the article any of the source's minor inaccuracies or any potential implications that readers may find. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Can you please provide supporting evidence for this being a news site that has been accepted as reliable? For instance, mainstream media sources or academic works that state this or use it as a basis/reference for their work? Nick-D (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Nick-D It would depend on what you mean by reliable. It's certainly a prominent source of news so it meets the standard for being a notable enough opinion to be placed into the article, within its context. You might want to try searching the news articles of the more mainstream established news sources, since most results on internet search engines will direct to Michael West Media itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

For example, The New Daily has used the Michael West Media website a number of times, such as [85] [86] [87] [88]. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Those appear to be articles by Michael West, not about Michael West Media. Being a journalist generally doesn’t qualify someone to become a publisher and editor all on their own, which appears to be what Michael West did after being laid off. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No, they clearly refer to Michael West Media. West himself was most notable for writing articles in Sydney Morning Herald among others. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No really, check again. The author on all four pieces is “Michael West @MichaelWestBiz” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. If there wasn't any reference to Michael West Media, I obviously wouldn't have brought them up. Did you not look at the end of the articles? Anyway, this discussion should be closed and we should move to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article, where we can discuss how the criticism and analysis of the subject should be written. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait, so you realized that Michael West was the author of all four pieces the entire time? Whats the point then? Michael West mentioning Michael West Media doesn’t do anything for us reliability wise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Michael West mentioning Michael West Media isn't what has been shown. I was helping Nick-D with their query, and gave them an example. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You just showed us four examples of Michael West mentioning Michael West Media. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The examples are The New Daily referencing and mentioning Michael West Media. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the examples from The New Daily referencing and mentioning Michael West Media... All written by Michael West. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

No, written by editorial staff, who are not Michael West. The articles themselves are written by Michael West, but obviously not everything on the page. This would be very obvious if you looked at the entire articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It is of course not relevant here who wrote the words, it is only relevant that The New Daily as a publisher sees fit to refer to Michael West Media. We could just do without the misinformation that the words in reference were by the article's author, Michael West. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

At least some of the words in reference are in fact made by the article’s author, unless of course unknown editorial staff are taking the liberty in writing in the first person as him. Do you perhaps have references made in slightly more reliable sources in pieces with authors who are not Michael West? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you are asking, but Michael West himself is not particularly relevant. Michael West Media (not Michael West himself) is being referenced by The New Daily editorial staff, and also the author Michael West as published on The New Daily. When using Michael West Media as a reference for Wikipedia articles, we should make sure to do so in line with our editorial policies. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you feel that the edit you made was in line with our editorial policies? Because as far as I can tell its not supported by the source, they simply don’t say that even if they’re reliable. See

WP:VERIFY. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 03:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Which edit? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The edit you made which this discussion is about, you were the last editor to restore the text under discussion here. For reference [89]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Where are you seeing the source say that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• The issue here is DUE WEIGHT. If only one media source has made note of Mr. Rubenstein’s commentary about ASPIRIN, then it probably does not rise to the level of coverage we need to say it should be mentioned in the article. And, if other media sources have discussed it, we can cite those instead. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blueboar: as it stands no media source has made note of Mr. Rubenstein’s commentary, its the same piece by Mr. Rubenstein which has been published in two different outlets. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

In which case, it is probably UNDUE to mention it. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That's demonstrably untrue, Michael West Media has certainly noted it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I look forward to you demonstrating it... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

And I look forward to you no longer lying. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You may want to retract that accusation, especially if you're going to be misrepresenting sources, as you are doing here. Cjhard (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What exactly are you accusing me of? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's constructive to get into personal reflections on this page any further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Then I suggest you do as Cjhard has suggested and retract that accusation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Editors are beginning to remove information cited to the