Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 383

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Daily Telegraph (UK) has a "Generally reliable" rating. I would argue for a caveat that articles written by "Telegraph Reporters" are given a lower level of reliability. Most articles in the Telegraph have a named author. They have started using "Telegraph Reporters" for anonymous articles, and these seem to driven more by opinion and less by fact, compared with their other articles. For example, if you compare this Telegraph article with the report from the employment tribunal on the same case, you can see that it was a heavily politicised account that omitted many of the key facts as to why the complainant was sacked. You can read other anonymous "Telegraph Reporters" articles here. I feel that this has become a way for the Telegraph to publish more spurious stories, without anyone having to sign their name to a story that turns out to be embarrassing. I would advocate that a caveat be added for articles by "Telegraph Reporters" to be avoided. Epa101 (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Support. Journalistic standards at the Telegraph have fallen heavily, to the extent that it now seems to be competing with the Daily Mail and Daily Express for click bait. --

talk

) 00:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• All articles from any publication with a named author rather than anonymous are generally going to be more reliable sources. With an author the source can be evaluated based on the quality of the publication and the quality of the author. This is a general sourcing guideline. See
  WP:RS: "When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts: The piece of work itself (the article, book); The creator of the work (the writer, journalist); The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press); Any of the three can affect reliability. The general lower reliability of anonymous articles with respect to authored articles by a publisher should apply to all publications. --Guest2625 (talk
  ) 01:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for citing this bit of policy. I vaguely remember having read it, but couldn't track it down. It sounds as if what I said above is already policy after all, but nonetheless is it worth an explicit note about the recent increase in anonymous articles at the Telegraph? I feel as if much of the "Perennial sources" discussion on the Telegraph is based on the period before its recent decline in reliability, which @

  John Maynard Friedman has mentioned above. Epa101 (talk

  ) 21:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  You cite and quote WP:RS, then out of quotes lead with "The general lower reliability of anonymous articles" when this concept is, as far as I can tell, nowhere to be found in WP:RS (if I'm wrong, please point it out. There are three concepts they point to , so if a named author isn't listed then you look at the piece and publisher, and of course context, to assess reliability. That's it. "By Freshface McNovice" is no more useful for establishing reliability than "By staff reporters" or a blank byline when it's an 800-word 5-W's article in a major mainstream paper. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS. The articles are both from the New York Times, so this category of information (publisher of work) gives no distinguishing information. Next, we are blind to the content of the articles (the reliability of the content is what we are trying to guess blindly), so this category of information (work itself) provides no information. Lastly, we have the category of author. In one case, there are a bunch of articles with author names, in the other case, there are a bunch of articles with no named author. Those five hundred individuals who are named are afraid that if they make repeated egregious errors in their reporting that they will lose – the public's trust – and never be able to work at any newspaper again. On the other hand, the unnamed authors on the other set of articles are only afraid to lose their job at the New York Times, but figure they will still be able to get another job at a different newspaper, since their shoddy anonymous articles will not be on their publication record. Therefore, because of fear of reputational damage, the 500 articles with named authors will on average be more accurate than the 500 articles with unnamed authors. --Guest2625 (talk

) 05:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Such a generalization about anonymous bylines seems rather silly and/or ignorant -- without anyone having to sign their name to a story that turns out to be embarrassing -- that's not why newspapers do it. See for example AP's guideline on bylines: Bylines may be used only if the journalist was in the datelined location to gather the information reported. This is probably written by a new/inexperienced courtroom journalist (based on the weight they seem to give to arguments over judgements; note also the piece predates the published opinion, so it wasn't reported from that, but court reports are also available in other forms the day they are made). The Telegraph may also have a stricter rule on bylines where you can't just write what is happening -- you still have to do some interviewing or other background work. Or they might make a judgement based on the number of hands that go into reworking the story. None of these bases for omitting a byline are reasonable justifications for saying a piece is not an RS on its face. This particular piece of reporting however is obviously silly on its own merits. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I hardly ever see the DT, but I wonder if these "Telegraph Reporter" pieces may not be unsolicited or semi-solicited pieces by outsiders, perhaps including PR people, political hacks and so on. As well as the interns. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

For all of the former, no, just plain no, for any even marginally mainstream publication -- that's against basic ethics to not demarcate that. For the latter, possibly, depending on the publication (not likely for the DT), but that doesn't mean there's not significant oversight and prerequisite training (especially if you can get an internship that lets you write). It's not like one is magically that much more competent of a reporter when comparing a senior in internship and a fresh graduate -- they both need significant oversight. Of course, if it is an intern or otherwise not considered a staff reporter or paid correspondent, that could also be a reason to omit a byline. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• • First of all, there is no need to begin by calling the idea "silly and/or ignorant". Please adhere to WP:Civility. Your arguments here seem mostly hypothetical. They might be valid for some newspapers, but they don't seem to apply in this case. The Telegraph has only started using this "Telegraph Reporters" tag fairly recently. For the vast majority of its existence, its articles were all signed with writers' names. Therefore, it doesn't seem to be a long-established policy on journalistic integrity. Second, the collection of articles under "Telegraph Reporters" are varied enough in subject that it's hard to imagine what policy they would have come up with recently that would have required anonymity for these cases. I feel that it is more likely a decline in the Telegraph's reliability in recent times. Epa101 (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

    Is there a specific time frame you'd like to bring, or some background citation that they didn' previously use anonymous bylines? A Proquest search (not straightforward as there are many ways in which an unlisted author might be encoded, which might have changed several times over the years) has it going back to at least 2010-11-30 "Welsh names derail train announcers" or encoded in authorname 2013-09-07 "Prepare for 5G, which leaves 4G in the dust", or 2008-03-06 "McCain rubs his hands" encoded as "Anonymous". Prior to that it uses some other encoding because they obviously didn't stop printing briefs, obits, reviews, letters, etc., but this is a quick reply. As to the rest, without giving an example of the collection of articles being "varied enough" I don't see why it's "hard to imagine" a policy of anonymity. You understand it's not required, right? It's because the publication doesn't feel it's necessary to give the reporters credit for that piece for whatever reason. As I said, my examples weren't exhaustive -- you can search on your own for other reasons newspapers have omitted bylines, none of which have to do with embarrassment. (It is not uncommon that a reporter/coauthor may choose to omit their own byline out of embarrassment or retracted endorsement, however.) SamuelRiv (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it's either silly or ignorant. Rather, I think it would be ignorant to assume anonymous bylines would never affect source reliability; either in practice or perception. With respect to The Telegraph, there was a 2015 controversy over their use of an anonymous byline for an article about two suicides at The Times, so among peers it is a potential eyebrow raiser, and should be considered.

  You mentioned the AP guides on bylines (which I'd argue does affect reliability, as it indicates a lack of firsthand reporting). The Telegraph seems to have guidelines here, but I'm not a subscriber to validate them. Might clear up any concerns. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think I ever said or implied that anonymity shouldn't be considered when evaluating an individual source -- it absolutely should. OP's proposal is to by default downgrade (or by default make a judgement of lowered reliability) any DT articles with an anonymous byline. My response was to explain why this proposal may reflect a silly and/or ignorant generalization of how these bylines are granted in practice. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I understand, and agree. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• I use sources all the time that don't have clear authors. It doesn't make them a priori unreliable. I recently used this source. It has no named author. It's perfectly reliable. If the Telegraph is to be unreliable for some purposes, the lack of a named author is not a game breaker. You've got to have another rationale. --Jayron32 15:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • We're not talking about whether you use them or not. We're talking about whether they should be allowed on Wikipedia. Guest2625 has pointed out that Wikipedia has a general policy that sources with anonymous authors are considered less reliable than those with named authors. This practice seems to be increased at the Telegraph. Epa101 (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Since reliability is not binary, we need to decide if a particular source is reliable enough. The lack of an author is rarely, in-and-of-itself, enough to push something down the reliability continuum to cross the line into the "unusable" level. I'm not saying these types of sources are the best there can be, but neither should lacking an author be the sole deal-breaker. If there are a lot of other problems, it can add to the list, but of itself, it should take an otherwise reliable source and make it unusable. --Jayron32 11:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• The Telegraph has long had clear biases. But with regard to the unsigned articles: (a) do they contain false claims, can they be trusted for facts? (b) are they sufficient to connote notability? Are there any with problems in either of these regards? - David Gerard (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I would say that the one that I cited above (on the tribunal with the Environment Tribunal) had the sort of reporting that you'd expect from the Daily Express or Daily Mail. These latter sources rarely fabricate stories out of thin air, but they report news with such cherry-picking of the facts, to suit their political agendas, that the line between reporting and opinion is blurred. In this article, the reporters somehow managed to miss how most of Mr. Legge's claims were dismissed and to be very brief in reporting the stated reasons why Mr Legge was sacked (working as a counsellor instead of the job that he was employed to, making up fake emergencies for time off work, failing to declare a conflict of interest, etc.). I'd say that's enough to put this particular article in the same category as the usual Express/Mail article. For the other articles by "Telegraph Reporters", we don't the equivalent of the employment-tribunal report to compare them with, but nonetheless I feel that these articles are not the sort of thing that previously earned the Telegraph the title of a newspaper of record. Epa101 (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• I stand by what I said earlier but on the general principle of bylines,
  talk
  ) 21:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The Telegraph's reporting on the case is accurate and fair.

The reserved judgment said that the complainant had withdrawn a defense of being a whistleblower and a complaint for harrassment. The only thing the court decided was that the complainant had provided sufficient evidence to warrant a full hearing. There are no "facts" at this point; they will be determined following the hearing. The Telegraph explains the two sides of the dispute: the complainant says he was fired for not positively discriminating in favor of females while the respondent says he was fired for using paid work time for personal business.

My criticism of these publications is that they published the story in the first place, when nothing has been proved. But that's an issue of weight. Their readers like to read about white men who claimed they are discriminated against, while Guardian readers don't.

If you want to know if a publication's reporting is fair and accurate, you should compare it with another publication covering the same story. The only other Wikipedia approved publication I could find that covers this story is The Times.[1] I can't read the whole article, but the title and first lines seem in line with what the Telegraph reported. The Daily Mail also covered it in a similar manner.

Unsigned articles in news media are generally more reliable than signed ones, because the author is the publication itself rather than the reporter. There's also less likelihood of opinion being included.

TFD (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

What is your last sentence based on? There are tons of studies on bias and reliability in media, so surely you are basing such a definitive and completely non-dubious statement on some methodical research? SamuelRiv (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• I’d be very wary of making a judgement on this whole category of articles. While some look clickbaity or possibly churnalism, that doesn’t appear to be the case for all of them. So far we have one example of what looks like bad reporting, which is suggested by original research. With reliable sources, anonymous articles attributed to publication are often the most reliable - they’re standing by the piece collectively. We should watch out for the declining reliability of the Telegraph, but we need independent sources repeatedly identifying inaccuracy before we move it out of the generally reliable category. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Journalists can refuse to put their name on stories they don't like, see byline strike. The lack of a byline where it otherwise would have been present could be interpreted as a sign the story is unreliable. That being said, it's unfair to single out The Telegraph. This happens at other newspapers too and journalists frequently withhold bylines as a deliberate way to signal a lack of credibility. [2] [3] If the OP is proposing to make a new yellow row at RSP for The Telegraph w/o bylines, that is scope creep and is singling out one publication for what should be a more general rule. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The website members.iinet.net.au/~royalty/ is used almost 400 times in articles [4]. The site itself doesn't exist, so it's only accessable through archive.org [5], with the latest update sometime in December 2019. It was mentioned at

• Clearly unreliable. I don't have a clue about how a bot might work, but nuking all the content dependent on this source is the correct course of action.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 20:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• newsyodel.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Content appears to be a beauty pageant fansite. It's been used recently for very low-profile contestants e.g. Cambodia entry to Miss Supranational 2023 here.

Formatting and authority are dubious. None of the writing appears to have authorship noted.

Also it seems to be a Wordpress skin, plus they can't decide how to spell their own name (yodel/yodal), and the only contact info is a gmail address. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Clearly unreliable. The site appears to be aggregating stories from a variety of mostly unattributed sources. It looks like the articles were run through Google Translate... perhaps multiple times, resulting in gems like hockey articles on the Detroit Crimson Wings, Buffalo Sabres' defenseman Owen Energy, drafted from the College of Michigan (in this one it mentions the Detroit Pink Wings) and a review of the latest Canon DSLR mannequin, etc...
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 23:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate input at Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 2#RfC about ownership of the laptop. TFD (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus that Aon is generally reliable. It has been pointed out that Aon often provides data not found in other sources, and care should be taken when using the source as it may be providing a different estimate than other sources, e.g. total economic damages, rather than property damage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

---

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

What best describes Aon’s reliability in weather related articles because there appears to be edit wars?

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

96.91.3.165 (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 While NOAA is superior, NCEI is often inferior and has holes in its data, leading to underestimated damage totals. For a tornado outbreak as big as the

Tornado outbreak of March 29-31, 2022 was confirmed by NOAA to have $1.3 billion. Aon often gives a more complete view of the storm, and WikiProject Weather, which has problems with being insistent, shouldn’t insist on just using NCEI data. --96.91.3.165 (talk

) 03:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I see the edit war, but no discussion on the

before your RfC) that you could link to, or where you told the other editors about the RfC here? SamuelRiv (talk

) 05:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this in the past - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#Aon. 50.200.241.190 (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

talk

) 03:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Really? There was no formal closure or consensus, so this is to firm that up. 159.118.230.50 (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Option 2 — Conditional: They are generally reliable and should be used in articles when NOAA has not provided a damage total. NOAA is the US Government’s meteorological organization, and while they can have errors, they should be accepted as more reliable over an insurance company. So AON is generally reliable and should be used on the condition that NOAA has not provided a damage total.

talk

) 11:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Noting: I switched to Option 2, as I was actually meaning Option 2 with my wording and not Option 1.

talk

) 03:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Since this is specific for weather articles, I will ping the active WikiProject Weather members:

talk

) 11:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have the same stance that I did before; I trust the government agencies more than I do an insurance company that I've never heard of before, especially since AON may put more or less value on thing in comparison to the NOAA. I'm not saying that they should be totally disregarded and deemed untrustworthy, but I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article that talks about them reliably making damage estimates for storm systems. NOAA may not always provide reliable damage estimates, but we still use to establish records for the costliest tornadoes, hurricanes, derechos, etc. I just don't believe an insurance company should have more weight on damage estimates than a government agency and I have a serious problem with using their damage estimates. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's much better to do what Slywriter did: notify the project. WikiProject Weather doesn't just consist of 15 people. Chlod (say hi!) 04:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• @United States Man: Since you seem to have a strong opinion on AON, please comment. 50.200.241.190 (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Please do not attempt to canvas this discussion. Calling people into a discussion because of their opinion is clear votestacking. Noah^Talk 04:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Can we get this relisted so people comment? 159.118.230.50 (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The RFC lasts 30 days, so there is no reason to relist an RFC that began 5-6 days ago.

talk

) 03:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 Based upon what I have seen, AON is generally reliable in their reporting of damage and death estimates. These estimates have often been used in place of estimates from the National Hurricane Center because the latter does not put much effort into researching the effects of tropical cyclones outside the United States. It's also helpful for countries in which it's hard to find sources for damage totals. Noah^Talk 04:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Option 1. AON is generally reliable for estimates of damages that can paint a better picture of a storm if we don't have any good sources that can be used. A guideline I generally use when writing is when there's conflict between official estimates and AON, it's important to emphasize official counts over AON's, since official sources are more likely to have boots on the ground that can assess the damages (well, depending on the agency; can't say much for US government sources). I, for one, use the NDRRMC's counts for storms that hit the Philippines, since they usually publish a gigantic table that confirms each estimation they make. But when it comes to storms that hit other areas in the Western Pacific basin (say Vietnam and neighboring countries), the numbers published by AON may be a better fit in terms of accuracy, much like what Hurricane Noah said. Chlod (say hi!) 04:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Option 2 – AON should not supersede NOAA, which is the most official source we can use. United States Man (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 - AON is not your typical insurance company. No cute little mascots or funny spokesperson. It is a reinsurance company, in other words it sells insurance to insurance companies for cases of extreme disaster, for instance. It also sells things like catastrophe modeling to insurance companies. Insurance companies with billions of dollars at stake are not prone to depending on unreliable sources. As tornadoes are not in my editing repertoire, where there is discrepancy are we sure they are measuring the same thing, i.e. total losses vs. insured losses? For disclosure I work in the insurance industry (in areas related to pricing) but have no connection whatsoever to AON. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

talk

) 23:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Elijahandskip that’s not the question posed at this rfc, it’s whether or not AON is reliable, and I believe it is. However, to answer your question, I think that is an MOS question, not an RS question. I think we’re comparing apples and oranges, because of the way losses are calculated. Total loss vs. insured loss. Pay close attention to how the source describes the loss. Can you point me to a specific as to where the two sourced disagree. Even if both sources are calculating total loss, are they calculating in the same basis? Actual Cash Value? Replacement Cost? Functional Replacement Cost? If the figures differ, perhaps it would be valuable to include both figures, as long as an appropriate description is included. It would give a better, more complete picture of a disaster. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions}

) 14:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

talk

) 15:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what the discrepancy is. NOAA has 48.105 tornado and 803.5 other wind damage, for a total of $851.605 million. AON has a figure of 850+ million. What’s the problem? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

talk

) 16:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, so it is. My bad for doing convenient but sloppy math. So the difference in NOAA is measuring direct property and crop losses on a physical damage basis, while AON in measuring total economic loss. Very different calculations. So the NOAA numbers are a subset of the calculations going into AONs figure. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Per 78.26, that means the NCEI storm database numbers (not the billion dollar disaster pages), is actually less reliable then NOAA.12.5.215.114 (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No, they said it was different calculations. Comparing apples and oranges as they put it.

talk

) 21:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Total economic loss sounds more reliable to me. 75.104.64.105 (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

As also explained by 78.26, this RfC is not to determine if it is more reliable, just that Aon is reliable for weather articles.

talk

) 05:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

True, but given how these NOAA vs Aon edit wars stem, it would be useful in this RFC to determine when one should be used over another. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No…

talk

) 13:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Your plan for dealing with these edit wars? 2601:185:8300:42EF:3816:9617:41F3:11F5 (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

This specific RfC is not to determine whether NOAA or Aon should be used. This RfC (as also explained by an admin), is specifically whether or not Aon can be used for weather articles. This is on the reliable sources talk page, not a larger discussion location.

talk

) 19:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

In the beginning, you were saying it was. A lot of times these RSN guidelines establish precedents. If option 2 wins that will certainly be the caveat. Even if option 1 wins a note about NOAA might appear. Otherwise another RFC at

WP:RSPS for descriptions. 2601:185:8300:42EF:F903:984D:2A2C:F89A (talk

) 20:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Optimally both figures would be used in an article because they measure different things, and the inclusion of both would give a fuller picture. Let me preface this by straightway acknowledging this is a limited, highly flawed illustration, but... Let's say there's a storm that hits the area where Bob has a tomato farm. The storm damages Bob's house, barn, some of his crops, several neighboring businesses, and there is resulting flooding that takes out the bridge. The damaged buildings from the storm, plus the bridge, are added up and included in NOAA's numbers. There was some damaged to Bob's crops, so that is added to the second set of NOAA numbers I looked at. However, Bob and all his friends now have to drive an extra 30 miles to cross a different bridge to get their tomatoes to the tomato Warehouse. It costs them extra money. Bob can't find hired hands to pick his tomatoes because they're all hired fixing buildings and bridges. So some of his leftover crops wither on the vines, and when he does hire it costs more money. Come to find out the tomato processing plant where the warehouse cooperative sends its tomatoes was wiped out in the storm (building included in NOAA), so the processing plant loses a ton of money in tomatoes it cant process and sell, and Bob has to find an entirely different place to sell his tomatoes, further costing him money. Bob's taxes go up to help repair the bridge, and the increase in his price to cover the taxes goes to the warehouse, the processor, the distributor, and the retailor. These are all economic losses, not physical losses, that are included in AON's figures. Some readers will be more interested in the physical loss, it is easily relatable regarding "what were the immediate effects of the storm", while the AON numbers give a long-term picture. Why use one instead of the other? They are both reliable for separate information. PS my participation here is only in an editorial capacity like anyone else, and carriers no more or less weight that any other editor. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that example

talk

) 00:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Per 78.26, using Aon's inflated numbers is going to lead to more billion-dollar disasters on Wikipedia that on NOAA's official list. Is that truly better or worse? I think misleading and worse. United States Man (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think calling AON's numbers "inflated" is accurate. Again, they are measuring different things. What is important is that they are labeled correctly. If you are measuring disaster dollars in property numbers only, use NOAA, and not AON, because the AON numbers aren't accurate for property damage. If you are measuring the total economic impact, use AON's, not NOAA, because the NOAA numbers only represent a portion of the total economic loss. But by all means don't mix the figures! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Since most people and agencies measure only property damage, the numbers are in fact inflated. United States Man (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I think using both is also the best solution. NCDC totals can be too low and Aon can inflate them. If the reader wants to know only physical losses, NCDC is the way to go. For total economic loss, which a lot of times is reported when hurricanes strike (for instance, NCDC losses for Katrina 2005 in Louisiana is less then $48 billion), then you use Aon. Even the NHC uses Aon in the TCRs. I think using both is a fair compromise, and gives readers the full picture. --74.101.118.197 (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Since the 30 days for the RfC are up, is it possible for a proper closure to happen?
  talk
  ) 00:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Not reliable. If this is the most authoritative resource on info like this, it's not info that needs to be in Wikipedia. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Not obviously reliable. Sometimes you do have self-published works like this that come to be widely accepted by a community or hobby group which could get to RS status. I am not seeing that here, but I've only done a couple basic google searches and this is not my area of expertise. Suffice it to say we cannot assume RS status here, and the onus should properly be placed on those wishing to use it as such to demonstrate its validity. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is the path forward per

WP:OR threshold). Bakkster Man (talk

) 14:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to say that the source is reliable, notwithstanding that it is self-published. A quick Google search shows that the book itself is cited as a source/resource in other, independent publications, and that the principal author is regarded as a subject-matter expert who has been published in other independent publications within the scope of that expertise. [8][9][10]
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 16:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's worth noting that Scouting (magazine) is not an independent source, it is published by BSA. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hmmm. Interesting point, although in this case, I am tempted to say the BSA acknowledging the book at issue as something of an authority actually is a pretty good mark in its favor. Given that it's not obviously self-serving for the BSA, I think that deserves some credit. And I am prepared to be shown contrary policy on this, but I don't think we would need RS status to deem a source an indicator of reliability(?). As ever, reasonable minds may differ, and there's my gut reaction on a Monday morning. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Right, it may indicate reliability because the official source recognized it, but it isn't itself independent. Though the question here is, are they recognizing it for memorabilia/collectible pricing, or as a list of all past and present councils? The latter gets into the other criteria of USINGSPS: It is appropriate for the material in question, i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing. There's cases to be made both ways: it's not a history of BSA councils, but the existence of a patch is good evidence for the existence of the council that distributed it.

  I would say we do need our source to be considered a Reliable Source for council founding/closure; with

  WP:USINGSPS describing the exceptional circumstances where an SPS of this type can be considered reliable. There's no exception for 'we have no reliable sources, so we have to use an unreliable one' that I'm aware of, Verifiability is absolute policy. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Bakkster Man (talk

  ) 17:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies, I explained myself badly. Of course we need any source to which we are citing to be reliable per policy. My point was that Scouting Magazine might have independence and

  WP:SPS issues if used for information about the BSA, but those same concerns don't obtain when someone points to the magazine as an indicator of reliability for the source under discussion (not that this indication is dispositive). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

  ) 17:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• I echo general points above that sometimes this kind of SPS is necessary or even desirable for more niche topics as they are generally accepted as reliable by their community (which may itself have been commented upon academically, and have certain financial considerations dependent on reliability, such as in collecting and trading historical patches). Such a source is more convenient for verifiability if it makes significantly more accessible and interpretable information that is otherwise rather restricted, remote, and/or scattered among primary sources. But this must be balanced with a consideration relevant to this book in particular: with no ISBN and no online excerpts, drafts, or other public access, it's considerably more difficult for a researcher/reader or editor to independently verify the material. I quickly searched some major library and aggregator catalogs (I've found useful obscure SPS before at Harvard for example) with no hits. This isn't disqualifying and has nothing to do with reliability per se, but should inform your judgement of how it should be used to reference information in an article. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Up to 2003, this was the "go to" book that listed all the councils. There are a couple of others works like this (look here: List_of_defunct_councils_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)#Notes), however, the authors went into the BSA archives and created a history of the hundreds of councils that had come and gone throughout the years. That's what it is used to document, and specific to the history of BSA councils, it is a reliable source. --evrik ^(talk) 03:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is the kind of specific info that is a good indication of reliability as the potential exception among SPS. What changed in 2003? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Good question. One set of authors published it for years. They died and another set of authors published one more edition. --evrik ^(talk) 02:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• At times like this we need to judge and go by ACTUAL reliability rather that looking for a particular trapping such as a layer of review. And they are a reliable and best source available for a wide variety of items. Nobody has questioned the actual reliability and it has been widely acknowledged. Plus it is non-controversial, it covers basic facts which do not conflict with other references and which are not covered by other references that have the trappings. Whether you call this a minor overlooking of a requirement for a trapping or a mild application of the
  WP:IAR policy (in a way that it was 100% clearly intended for) this reference should be fully used. Sincerely, North8000 (talk
  ) 13:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

There's also bit of a misunderstanding of what the operative part of wp:Ver says. In essence that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be suitably sourced. So the question is whether or not a source is suitable to support challenged material. NOT whether or no the source can exist/ be used in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• For the kind of banal material that this source is likely to cover, which is likely to be non-controversial, it serves the purpose well. I see no problem using it. If there is a bonafide challenge (i.e. if the source says that some council existed, and someone comes along and says "I live in this area, was a member of scouts, and I can show you that the council didn't exist!) then another, better source would need to be found. However, given the likelyhood of that happening is low, the Scouting organization itself seems to have cosigned the source, I see no issue with using it. --Jayron32 14:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: Original thread title was "Correction should be made to the war information in Tigray, Ethiopia. The War was started by the current Prime Minister. The helicopter was sent to Tigray, with Ethiopian soldiers in it to ambush the leadership in the region of Tigray.". Levivich 17:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Facts Checkers 97.105.185.178 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Which source do you wish to discuss? Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This should probably be at NPOVN rather than here but, like most highly contentious national/ethnic/tribal conflicts, the editors it attracts know nothing about Wikipedia. I've tried to put eyes on the mess around these articles in the past, but unfamiliarity with the conflict, a dearth of quality English language sources, and most of the African sources from that area being poor quality and agenda driven has led me to essentially give up. Take a look at

FANO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for instance. It's just a long term edit war between mostly new and IP editors swinging the POV of the article all over the place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 17:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Tell from the The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago book. Bhil and Meena are the same tribal community? What a reliable source it is? Please kindly explain. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop wasting peoples time with questions like these. We cannot possibly assess a source without a proper citation, and an indication of what it is being cited for, and what the hell are you expecting us to 'explain'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Given that it's from 1905, I'd say no per

WP:RAJ. Hemiauchenia (talk

) 12:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Whether the source is reliable depends on what you're trying to use the source to justify. For tribal consanguinity, you should check to make sure the names used in the book actually refer to the same names as they are used to-day; but otherwise, it should be reliable. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever read

WP:RAJ? AndyTheGrump (talk

) 21:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• There is a Wikipedia article on the author that discusses the book
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 23:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• No, it's not a reliable source, nearly everything from the
  WP:RAJ era is outdated if not fringe by today's standards. In particular, topics related to caste, ethnicity, etc were premised on racial sciences which this book fairly clearly is as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk
  20:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Used in Cinderella III: A Twist in Time; GA review is Talk:Cinderella III: A Twist in Time/GA1. Pinging nominator: Changedforbetter so they can comment here. (Note: Per Jayron32's suggestion below I am adding what these are being used for in the article.)

• filmtotaal.nl -- Dutch film reviews. The only page with any information about it is this one, which doesn't make it clear whether contributions are edited.

  Used for genre and production budget. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• animatedviews.com -- I can't find anything out about this site.

  Multiple cites to this interview. Also reviews and cites to previous work by team members. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• animesuperhero.com -- same again; no useful masthead or links

  Multiple cites to this interview. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• filmschoolrejects.com -- a multiperson blog, but per this page it looks like there's some form of editorial oversight

  This listicle. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  This listicle is written by Christopher Campbell who, according to the website's "About Us" page, is both a founding and senior editor of the publication. Film School Rejects itself has been cited in a USA Today article, specifically a quote by managing editor Scott Beggs. Other publications that have referenced the website include AMC; IndieWire (the website references a tweet by director Guillermo del Toro, in which he quotes a Film School Rejects review of one of his films) Changedforbetter (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• dvdtalk.com -- per this page it clearly was a one-person site at one time, but was acquired by "Internet Brands", though that doesn't help much.

  Reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• mediamikes.com -- per this it seems it started as a fan site but has grown quite a bit; it still seems to be a blog/fansite.

  Release date. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Per my conversation with @Mike Christie and @VickKiang on Cinderella III's GA nomination page, a source's usage by reliable sources/publications outside of the questionable source itself can help validate its reliability/respectability; I have found examples of mediamikes.com being cited by publications such as Northwest Florida Daily News (specifically in reference to the work of contributor Mike A. Smith, who has apparently written a making-of book on the film Jaws 2); Woman's World Magazine; blabbermouth.net; Yahoo! Sports (or Yahoo Entertainment); IndieBound; and Screen Rant Changedforbetter (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Used in King Kong vs. Godzilla; GA review is Talk:King Kong vs. Godzilla/GA1. Pinging nominator: Eiga-Kevin2 so they can comment here. (Note: Per Jayron32's suggestion below I am adding what these are being used for in the article.)

• vantagepointinterviews.com -- per this page it appears to be a one-man operation.

  This interview. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• the-numbers.com -- per this page it started as a one-person site, and it's not clear that's ever changed.

  Home market performance. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm having difficulties finding noticeboard discussions concerning the-numbers.com, but here are a few:

  Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39#The-Numbers.com

  Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_74#Is_website_"The_Numbers"_an_appropriate_source_for_film_info?

  Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79#"The_Numbers"_as_a_source_for_budgets

  Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_132#Chart_ranks

  Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_148#Box_Office_Mojo_and_Boxoffice.com

  Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Domestic_and_worldwide_box_office_gross

  The last time I reviewed these, my take was that it's slightly worse than BoxOfficeMojo. --Hipal (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I've had a look at a couple. If I have more time (maybe likely, I'll have a look at the rest).

• In the article, it seems that Comic Book Resources is used, there was a discussion on RSN with consensus that it's a situational one, editors advice caution against post-2016 content or listicles. Form what I can see, the ref used is in listicle-format, but at least it isn't a 10 best of list and goes into fair detail, so it's your call.
• Media Mikes seem to be situational. On one hand, it looks like an unprofessional blog, without editorial policies. On the other hand, the reviewer is a certified critic on RT. However, the site's founder doesn't appear to be qualified. I'd say maybe the reviews written by Mike Smith is probably all right, but maybe caution is needed for these from contributors, given the lack of editorial oversight.
• Film School Rejects- Clearly non-RS. It has an amateurish about us page, but the editor is unqualified and there isn't any policies whatsoever.
• Anime Superhero- Non-RS. I couldn't even find an about us page, somehow, there's no editorial policies, just terms and services and privacy ones (which almost every website should have). No indication of reliability, IMHO. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The Numbers is very widely cited for box office data. I would go so far as to say that it is de facto our go-to source for box office data when we for some reason cannot or do not wish to cite Box Office Mojo. I would not use it for e.g. release dates or cast listings since I don't know if that's within the source's accepted areas of expertise, but when it comes to box office data I am fairly certain that it is reliable. I see that the data it's cited for in the article in question is home media sales, and there I really have no idea about reliability. Ping Betty Logan who may have further insights. TompaDompa (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• SO, without getting too deep on the individual articles, we really need to figure out how they are being used. Are they being used as a source of opinion (reviews and ratings) or are they being used for factual information? Is the information related to
  WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. --Jayron32
  14:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes; added notes above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. With regard to reviews, that is not a reliability issue. What reliability means is "Can we trust this source to verify this information at Wikipedia". If the information is "dvdtalk.com rated the movie as 3.5 stars and called it a quality film", then the dvdtalk.com website is self-evidently perfectly and unambiguously reliable for it's own opinions on the quality of the movie. This is not a reliability issue. That doesn't mean we should be writing about dvdtalk.com's reviews at all, but the rationale you use for including their opinion, or not including it, is not based on reliability, and should be based on other Wikipedia PAGs. With regards to facts and information, that is a reliability issue, so if we said, at Wikipedia, "John Doe likes to have sexual relations with goats", and that was cited dvdtalk.com, dvdtalk.com is NOT a reliable source for that kind of information, so that would be a hard no. --Jayron32 12:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I take your point, but there's certainly a filter for which review sites we use in film/music/video game articles, and it generally gets called reliability. For example, this is the video games sources page, and this is the one for albums; these explicitly talk about reliability for reviews. I would think RSN is a place to discuss that filter, as well as the more factual filter that you describe. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

No box-office metrics site is perfect (especially for older stuff)—I have found errors in every single one I have ever comes across, but on the whole I would say The Numbers is a fairly reliable source. I would have reservations about using it to source BLP information, but generally it is pretty solid on the numbers. When it gets something wrong it usually comes to light pretty quickly. In truth I have more concerns about Box Office Mojo these days. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think I'll accept The Numbers in this case, then. Any more feedback from anyone on any of the other sites would be great -- I'm asking because I questioned them at the GANs but the nominators want to keep them, but I don't see a good justification for their reliability. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• DVD Talk is a reliable source for reviews as it is a regular critic at Rotten Tomatoes and has some influence with other reliable sources as described on its wikipedia page. Its reviews are used in many wikipedia articles, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I've just discovered the last source to be discussed for the King Kong vs. Godzilla article's GA nom (vantagepointinterviews.com) falls under
  WP:SPS and will go ahead and remove it now. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk
  ) 11:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Is https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/home.html an RS? it is being used over at World War I? Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks good to me, though I am not overly sure of its reputation. Largely contributed to by academics and edited by academics. Also, as our Wiki page notes, it was endorsed by the American Library Association. Seems appropriate to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

OK. Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It appears to meet rs, but it is a tertiary source and policy says (see

WP:PST), "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." The disadvantage is that it does not provide sources. Also, if a Wikipedia article is sourced to the 1914-1918 encyclopedia, why should readers go to the Wikipedia article instead of the 1914-1918 article it's based on? TFD (talk

) 10:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

There are other issues to be sure, but it was (a kind of) link spamming that drew my attention and made me wonder about its reliability. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The liberal arts and social sciences are different from hard sciences (which I'm more familiar with) in their publishing norms, so I have an honest question for any academics in historical fields about whether a source like this -- an article by a subject matter expert that cites a long variety of secondary sources and is published in a medium with at least some level of review -- would be closer to WP:Tertiary (which to me is aimed more at something like Britannica at its best, which doesn't cite sources), or whether it seems closer to another secondary or even a scholarly review article (which it is not the same as, as it doesn't take a deep dive into particular technical details among sources to compare and weigh, but in the context of its field, is it more comparable to one or another)? SamuelRiv (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The publishing norms are not actually that different. The articles are similar to EB, and note they don't use footnotes either. TFD (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Which article are you looking at? Post-war societies uses footnotes and Prochaska Affair has (one) endnotes, either of which make any article categorically different from Britannica.

By different publishing norms I mean for example, among other things, LAS will publish and cite a substantial amount of primary scholarly material as books (with both a lay and academic audience) as well as journal articles, whereas books with a lay audience (or any book that is not a collection of review articles and/or conference proceedings) (apart from limited reference to advanced textbooks, technical handbooks, or cross-references to LAS such as history and philosophy of science) are practically absent from hard science citations. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The FAQ describes it as "scholarly publication" and "subject to a full two-staged academic review", which is strongly encouraging. The AmericanLibraryAssociation put it on an Annual list of Best Historical Materials, which is far better than we can expect for almost any other source we use. So it clearly passes our standards of sourcing, unless and until anyone presents significant evidence to the contrary.

As a side note: It happens to run on top of our wikisoftware, and oh my god that front page is Web Future-point-zero awful. When I scroll, stuff is moving and jumping and fonts changing size(!?!), and even when I do nothing stuff jumps on its own. I expect their designer(s) will swiftly be hired by the WMF at a major jump in pay. Alsee (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Probably not as good to cite as a peer-reviewed paper but not far off. The Ottoman history topics I'm familiar with are quite good, for example the Armenian genocide article is written by the respected historian Ronald Grigor Suny and heavily borrows from his well-received 2015 book on the subject. (t · c) buidhe 16:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It clearly qualifies as RS but like any it has issues. See this revision of "Navy Squadron in the Mediterranean (Japan)", for example. Before I contacted them last year the article contained two incorrect naval titles, an incorrect rank, a fake quote, and an incorrect page reference. A "full two-staged academic review" didn't count for much in this instance. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliability is not a synonym for perfection, and "has never produced a work ever that contained any verifiable errors" is not a standard that any source can be held to. Did they correct the mistakes when made aware of the problem? If so, a willingness to make corrections is a hallmark of reliability and should count in their favor, not against them. --Jayron32 15:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable per failed factchecks pointed out by Simon Harley.--Madame Necker (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, despite the mistakes Simon Harley and Jayron32 still believe it's an RS. Minor errors for one article probably shouldn't discount a website's reliability entirely, especially when they're actively correcting them. VickKiang (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• The issue was brought to our attention by Pathawi on Talk:Arabic#Proposal_to_Remove_Two_Maps.

Basically, this map was uploaded to Commons in 2011 and has been updated multiple times and used in various projects ever since. It remained unsourced until March 2022, when Buidhe added a source to it with an edit summary that states that the source in question copied the map from Commons.

Having checked the source, I too can confirm that the two maps are identical (expect for Somaliland, which was added after the publication of the book); but unfortunately, the author of the book does not specify its origin. The map's caption says "Fig. 1 Major dialects of Arabic, by region. (Open source)", with no mention of Commons. The first thing that crossed my mind was that they might not be aware of how CC BY 3.0 works, but the fact that they gave the appropriate credits for all the other Commons images that they used is a bit of an issue.

Some input on whether it should be considered "sourced" or whether this is clear case of

I think the fact that it is used in reference book from Springer, which is an academic publisher, Handbook of the Changing World Language Map, shows that the map is accurate. Presumably, an expert has looked at the map and thought it reliable enough to include.

The danger in circular sourcing is that an author may take a claim in Wikipedia at face value, even if it is wrong. That is particularly the case where the authors have no expertise or are writing outside their area of expertise.

TFD (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Springer Books is notoriously garbage and will basically publish anything. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The cited source indicates that the original is from Relevance of Arabic Dialects: A Brief Discussion (DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3_79). Does someone have SpringerLink access here? (It’s part of the

WP:TWL

but you need to ask for it; so I don’t have access right now.)

the fact that it is used in reference book from Springer, which is an academic publisher (...) shows that the map is accurate. Presumably, an expert has looked at the map and thought it reliable enough to include. I am afraid we should not make any such assumptions. In all probability, the only person that made any sort of serious inquiry as to the accuracy of the map is Genevieve A. Schmitt (author of the article). Maybe the book editors looked at it, maybe not, but the publisher certainly made at best some formatting and a spellcheck. Now, maybe G.A.Schmitt entirely created the map from another non-Commons source; maybe she just reused it but only after a careful examination of its contents; maybe she reused it after eyeballing that nothing was wrong for what she is using it for; or maybe she just copy-pasted it without looking at it. We have no way to know.

On the contrary, if the map is credited to an external "open source", but does not cite that source fully, that is a red flag. Regardless of what the CC license requires, a basic academic good practice is to cite with precision anything you did not create yourself. However, we only have the caption. From the Springer page, I can see the bibliography but there’s no cite to Commons or Wikipedia and nothing that screams that the map is taken from it, so someone with full access might do better sleuthing. I will crosspost on

WP:RX. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)}

14:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I have full access to the source. Apart from the caption, the author mentions the above map (Fig 1) only when comparing it to one of their maps (Fig 2):

Interestingly, the syntax, phonology, morphology, and lexicon of MSA are considerably different from that of spoken dialects (Figs. 1 and 2).

M.Bitton (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Presumably, Ms. Schmitt, whose book The Complexities of Learning Arabic in the 21st Century was published by Peter_Lang_(publisher) and who used the map in her article, "Relevance of Arabic Dialects: A Brief Discussion" for Springer, would have more expertise in determining the map was accurate than the average Wikipedia editor. Although she has an MA "with an emphasis in world languages, she "is researching social perceptions of Jordanian Arabic dialects after receiving a Fulbright research award." So she is more credible than the average "independent researcher."

Anyway the map is published on her book's Amazon page, sourced to Wikipedia, so that is probably the source. The irony is that had when academic publications or experts provide no sources for claims, they are considered reliable. The reality is that many claims cited in books are originally based on unreliable sources and we trust the authors to determine whether or not they are accurate. I would assume that an academic book called the the Handbook of the Changing World Language Map would be a good source for language maps.

Incidentally, there is no need to repeat what I wrote as I am quite capable of reading my own postings myself.

TFD (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue of the mass omission of data sources in user-uploaded maps and diagrams on Commons has never been adequately addressed in its history and is frankly a shame on the project, and I will be posting a complete critique of the issue as a whole (with call for proposed remedy steps), as well as this case in particular and the behavior of editors involved, on the Commons Village Pump perhaps tomorrow once I finish collecting as much of the past discussions as I can. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The author is an independent researcher (that is, not affiliated with a university) who holds a Masters degree in education. Her work deals principally with the teaching of Arabic to non-native speakers in Western universities: She does not do dialectological research. The chapter in question deals with attitudes toward dialect in Egypt & the Levant—not with dialectology (or even Arabic dialectology) as such. The editors are not Arabists, & in a 4,000-page book of 215 chapters by hundreds of authors, it is unlikely in the extreme that they fact-checked every datum. The map appears as a figure cited only parenthetically once to illustrate that Arabic has multiple dialects. (The full text of the only citing paragraph: 'Interestingly, the syntax, phonology, morphology, and lexicon of MSA are considerably different from that of spoken dialects (Figs. 1 and 2).' The map in question is Fig 1.) I don't think that we should presume that an expert looked at the map and thought it reliable enough to include. This seems quite clearly to be a case in which an author took a claim in a Wikimedia project at face value. I'm going to contact her to see if she can illuminate the process at all. Pathawi (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with the concerns regarding Commons, I don't think that the editors did anything wrong in this case. They saw an unsourced map and tried to address the inaccuracies as best as they could (which isn't all that uncommon). The new description makes it clear that it's the source that uses the map and not the other way round. M.Bitton (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

(This comment moved to Talk:Arabic.)

@Pathawi:: Can I please move every paragraph of your post dealing with the map WP/C file and accuracy itself -- and not the book source and CIRCULAR stuff -- to your thread on Talk:Arabic so that discussion isn't split onto a fourth page (and fourth namespace!)??? Let's deal with Commons policy, the map uploaders and reverters, and the map quality itself elsewhere, because that's beyond the scope of this board and this thread.

As for the substance of your post related solely to the book and Circular, I largely agree, and I think most people here would too. All further discussion of the content of the map and Commons should be on your other thread. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sure! I'm not familiar with this space & just followed when the conversation moved here. Sorry I didn't distinguish well what belonged where. Pathawi (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• I found another source (published in 2017) that uses the same map. Its author doesn't mention the map's source or give credit to anyone. Before you ask, I did check the full size version too (on page 10). M.Bitton (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR

says, "Do not use articles from Wikipedia...as sources [or] websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources." My reading is that it stops us from using Wikipedia mirror articles or any article that is substantially based on Wikipedia articles. There is no proviso that says a statement in a source sourced to Wikipedia is not allowed. Either the whole book or article is reliable or it isn't. While you could say this makes the book or article unreliable, the fact it is published by Springer should be enough to consider it reliable.

This seems to be a redundant policy. None of these sources would meet RS anyway.The value of the policy is that instead extensive discussion on whether a specific publisher is reliable we can just say that their article is copied from Wikipedia. QED.

I do not see WP:CIRCULAR applies. If you think this type of situation should be added, then that should go to the Village Pump.

TFD (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The all-or-nothing judgment seems arbitrary, & inconsistent with how Wikipedia usually operates.

WP:CIRCULAR. I think this exactly its purpose. Pathawi (talk

) 02:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree. Here, the context is that the map was (very probably) copied from Commons, without alteration or any kind of critical commentary, and is used purely for illustrative purposes (I got the full article from RX and it talks of large dialect groups but not of subtle distinctions of where those are spoken). The fact that it is sloppily cited (CC BY SA not respected, no useful source indication) also tends to suggest that little care was taken around that piece of media, even if the rest of the article is flawless scholarship. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 18:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: You make a great deal of the fact this book chapter was published by Springer. I am not sure you are aware that academic publishing works very differently than standard publishing. So, sorry if you already know that, but here’s a simplified summary (some would say oversimplified).

If you prefer a more empirical approach, Scientific Reports is a journal published by Springer (more precisely, Springer Nature nowadays). I will let you read the "controversies" section. On the other hand, Catalysts (journal) is as far as I can tell (not my domain) a rather serious journal, even though it’s published by a dubious publisher. To be clear, those are not extreme cherry-picked examples - every major academic publisher has portfolio items ranging from the good/excellent to the awful.

TL;DR: in academic topics, the publishing house is a poor predictor on the reliability of individual sources, because the publisher exercises very little quality control. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 18:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

This is something I've wondered about. I've never been involved with publishing an academic book, just journal/conference articles/papers. At the paper/article level we are dealing with several reviewers in the field and because the scope is narrow you typically will have a careful review. This was the practice for myself and those I was working with. I'm less certain about content from a book from an academic publisher. What level of review/fact checking is performed before the book is published? How much of the view is generalized? That is, does the reviewer checks the general conclusions or are they going to check every claim as would be expected of a paper review (perhaps 10 pages vs say well over 100). Should we treat a claim by Prof M as more reliable if it's in their book vs in an OpEd article they just wrote? I feel like sometimes these differences are used to keep content in/out of articles. This can be particularly important when we are claiming something is a consensus view but we ignore a dissenting view because Prof M said it in an interview vs in their latest book. Springee (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Similar points have been brought up before on RSN, and it seems to be entirely lacking in the SCIRS essay, which is probably where this should be consolidated. Would you consider adding it there, or would you mind if I incorporated it in your stead? (EC ^ above, perhaps more elucidation is warranted) SamuelRiv (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

SamuelRiv Feel free to condense my wall of text and post it wherever you think appropriate. Technically you did not need my authorization, it’s CC-BY-SA after all. A word of caution though: my assertion that academic books "usually" have no reviewers would need checking. That is definitely the case in my field (physics, more specifically heat transfer), but that is a field that communicates research via papers, so books exist on a continuum between handbooks for student instruction (usually done by one, two or three authors, and rather light on citations) and large organized literature reviews (usually done with one author per chapter and one or two editors that coordinate the whole thing); they never contain much original research. I am aware that in other fields (at least some parts of sociology), books are a way to publish original research. I do not know if such books always, often, seldom or never have "reviewers" or any similar sort of quality control. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The controversies section largely covers "isolated studies" which we would not normally use as sources, per

weight

. The map incidentally is not mentioned in passing. It is a dialect map of the Middle East in an article about mapping dialects in the Middle East. It is similar to an article about "American states" showing a map of the U.S. divided into states. We would expect the author could find American states on a map.

While the academic publishing system is not perfect, in general secondary sources are considered the best sources available. In this case a reputable academic publisher shows experts to edit the book and to select other experts to contribute articles. The book then entered the body of literature on the topic and will be included as a source for future literature on the subject.

Policy actually allows books by non-experts provided they are published by a respected non-academic publishing house, such as Sinmon & Shuster, or newspaper columns written by experts. In practice, the criteria used by editors for inclusion is often far lower.

In a perfect world, it might be possible for Wikipedia to set up a fact checking team to verify the claims that appear in textbooks. Instead, we treat them as facts provided that they are within the subject matter of the source and no evidence has come to question them.

Other than its provenance, is there any reason to doubt the map provided? Can you point to any errors, where a dialect group is placed in the wrong location?

As I mentioned above, there is no policy or guideline that prohibits use of this source. If you think there should be, get the policy changed.

TFD (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, I can point out several errors, but this is not the forum for that. At another editor's request I removed a somewhat lengthy history of how just one such error came to be as it was about the specific content, rather than the reliability policy. The map in fact invents a dialect whole cloth. That discussion has been moved over to the Talk page for Arabic. The chapter—which I have read in full—is not about Arabic dialectology. It is about attitudes toward dialect (in contrast with formal literary Arabic) in two of the locations on a rather vast map. There are extremely few people who could be considered to have the kind of expertise necessary to independently evaluate a map like that. We can't assume that its passing use in an article that—again—is not actually about dialectology, & in which it's only referenced parenthetically is a consecration of our errors. It is possible to trace the provenance of the map very, very clearly, & everything on that map comes from Wikimedia users. For the sole case where sources other than anonymous personal knowledge are cited, the sources are demonstrably used incorrectly. This is the central problem with circular citation. No other policy is necessary. Pathawi (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the above, again,

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. That is policy, and it requires us to think about the link between the source and the claim it supports, rather than think in rigid terms of "peer-reviewed = enough for inclusion". That does not require a team of fact-checkers to independently evaluate the claim, but it does require using one’s brain. I would assume (I am not an Arabic speaker, let alone an Arabic scholar) the source is fine for assertions about high and low registers of Egyptian Arabic that it discusses at length. It is definitely not fine for washing any doubts about a map lifted wholesale from Commons without commentary or even a proper cite. (Again, I don’t really care about the insufficient citation. But a lack of care over the citation clearly increases the probability of a lack of care about content.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)}

13:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The biggest issue here is that there is no way for us to be absolutely certain that the map in question has been copied from Commons. The possibility that there is a map that we don't know about (the original map) in the public domain is what prompted my search. The fact that I found another source (written by a linguist) that uses a similar map makes me doubt the circular referencing claim even more. M.Bitton (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

That book says (page iv) "first published in 2017". The Commons map exists since 2011. The version used in the book seems to be that one, which was on Commons between 2013 and 2020. Either it was taken from Commons, or there is another source for both the 2013 Commons and the 2017 book which we don’t know about because neither Commons nor the book mentions it. My money is on the former.

I concede that book is a better support for the argument of "OK it’s circular but the author must have checked it so it validates it a posteriori" than the Schmitt chapter. I am still uneasy, both about the circular-wash argument in general, and the effect in that case (are we going to "lock in place" the Commons map to the 2013 version, because that’s the "sourced" one?). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

What would we do if someone uploaded a new map based on the new source? M.Bitton (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Professor al-Sharkawi's book is from 2017. His map is actually a modified version of the Wikimedia Commons map. The Wikimedia Commons map has existed since 2011. The original uploader, Kathovo, stated in 2012 that they had just vectorised this other Wikimedia Commons map. That map was uploaded to Wikipedia in 2009 by user RafaAzevedo. That user claimed to have vectorised the map from Wikipedia user Arab League (who has since changed their name to Arab Hafez), who uploaded a PNG on 17 August 2008. Al-Sharkawi's book is not cited as a source of the Wikipedia Commons map, so it does not directly come into the circularity argument. I believe that it is taken from Wikimedia Commons, & I've reached out to Professor al-Sharkawi about that, but here there's no question—yet!—of circularity. But I don't know why this would lead us to posit an additional version of this map out there somewhere: As Tigraan notes, this is the 2013 version of the map (greyscaled, & with patterns swapped in for colours). That version contains changes that we can very clearly trace within Wikimedia Commons going back to a dramatically different 2008 version. If Professor al-Sharkawi got this map from some unknown third source, that source would either have taken the map from Wikimedia Commons, or have taken some fourth source & then thru sheer coincidence have independently made the exact same changes that we can see in Wikimedia Commons. 'Exact same' here means that dialect boundaries for a fictitious dialect that do not correspond to political boundaries would line up in an overlay of the two maps. That would be a pretty big coincidence. Pathawi (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, short of contacting the authors, there is simply no way for us to know (for certain) the origin of their maps. M.Bitton (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

But you're talking about something hypothetical. We can't fix everything here. & the reality is that Wikipedia has & will continue to report falsehoods for various reasons. We sometimes abbreviate our values by saying that we value verifiability over truth, but that's not the whole story:

WP:AGE MATTERS

for example uses reasons other than verifiability to prefer some verifiable sources over others. In the present instance, Professor al-Sharkawi's book is irrelevant. It's not cited in Wikipedia (at least, not as a source of this map). You asked what we would do if a new map were uploaded that cited al-Sharkawi's map. I don't mean this as a flippant answer, but I think that a real honest answer is: Cross that bridge. It hasn't happened. Schmitt's map is immediately relevant, but we know with reasonable certainty that it is not the source of the Wikimedia Commons map. We know that for two related reasons: First, the metadata added in the description on 19 March of this year did not accompany any edits to the map. The editor who added that information (username Buidhe) has never edited the map itself. The edits to the map that lead to the version we see in Schmitt all precede the Schmitt publication by several years, & the most recent pre-Schmitt edits include sourcing that is clearly not from the future. Second, this is Wikipedia user Iskandar323's misreading of that material: Not what Wikimedia Commons says (in Buidhe's standing edit that we're referring to). The description says:

Used in the following source (backwards copy): Schmitt, Genevieve A. (2019). "Relevance of Arabic Dialects: A Brief Discussion". In Brunn, Stanley D.; Kehrein, Roland (eds.). Handbook of the Changing World Language Map. Springer. p. 1385. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3_79. ISBN 978-3-030-02437-6. as "Fig. 1 Major dialects of Arabic, by region. (Open source)"

The key phrases here are 'used in the following source' & 'backwards copy'. A

WP:BACKWARDSCOPY is a case where someone else copies from us. Buidhe says this in as many words in the edit description: 'a source that copied the image from us'. Now, is it possible that Buidhe's wrong? Sure. It would mean that thru some mind-bogglingly improbable coincidence two versions of a map were independently produced that matched up at the same size pixel-for-pixel in all (non-political!) borders, all location labels, & all colours. But the Universe is big & old & mind-bogglingly improbable coincidences happen. But what's clear is that this is not a case of an editor claiming that they got the info in this map from Schmitt's chapter. No one who has edited this map has made that claim. A Wikipedia user who glanced at that description quickly has misinterpreted a Wikimedia Commons user's comment to be saying the opposite of what it was. Pathawi (talk

) 12:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

& I suppose what this means, then, is that there's no circularity issue at all. There's just a single Wikipedia user's misreading & a lot of storm & fluff in its wake. The map is in its greatest part not based on reliable sources but for reasons unrelated to circularity. We can hypothesise a case in which a new map were uploaded based on one of these print sources, & then we'd have a circularity issue, but that's not where we are. Pathawi (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You mean "we" are talking about something that will remain hypothetical (guessing the origin of all these maps), while in fact, there is nothing stopping someone from uploading a "new map" (based on the two above sources) to replace the unsourced version. M.Bitton (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It's hypothetical because it could happen, but it hasn't happened. I don't know that it will remain hypothetical (I think that might be logically impossible, right? if it were to remain hypothetical, then it would never happen, & if it were knowable in advance that it would never happen… maybe it wouldn't be hypothetical?), but it is hypothetical right now. Pathawi (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Would it help if I did it (as a test)? M.Bitton (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

No. That would make everything worse. Pathawi (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

In that case, what can easily be done by anyone should not be dismissed as purely hypothetical. M.Bitton (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I don't follow what you're getting at. The hypothetical is what could be real, but is not necessarily so. What general kind of outcome are you trying to get at? If A dies, & then B is accused of murdering A, & then it is shown by overwhelming evidence that B did not murder A, B still could murder someone in the future. That's a hypothetical possibility. But that's different from the question of whether or not B murdered A. In the present case, I'm saying that it is extremely clear that the map in question is not consecrated by Buidhe's mention of a backwards copy, or Iskandard323's misreading of Buidhe's mention of a backwards copy. I was wrong to conclude earlier that this was a circular reference. You were wrong to read it as a possible circular reference. (And TFD is wrong to think that it consecrates the Wikimedia Commons map.) The question of a future possibility seems to me to be a fundamentally different question from that of whether or not the present map could be considered sourced, as you initially asked. Could someone copy the Schmitt or Al-Sharkawi maps in the future? Yes. Could other problems happen in the future? Yes. Couldn't any citation from Wikipedia become circular in the future? Pathawi (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The question is directly related to this issue. I offered to do it (upload the map) so that we don't have to wait before discussing it. M.Bitton (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not really clear on what the benefit would be. It would be a somewhat different conversation from this one, & would create a problem that we don't currently have. If the upshot is just: A circular use which carries no citation wouldn't be demonstrably a circular use, & thus is a way in which

WP:VERIFY policy doesn't tell us how to determine if content is circular when no citation is provided. I don't know what there is to discuss, or why we would want to make that happen. You'd have to believe some pretty extraordinary coincidences to buy that Prof al-Sharkawi's map was not taken from Wikimedia. Is that what you want to discuss? Is this noticeboard the place to do that? Pathawi (talk

) 16:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Professor al-Sharkawi just e-mailed me back & confirmed that the map came from Wikimedia. Pathawi (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Did they say anything else about it (given the fact that they have given it their seal of approval)? More important though, do they intend to address the copyright issue? M.Bitton (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No. He was struck by the examples of errors I mentioned in my first e-mail, and asked for a full list of errors so that they aren't repeated in the second edition. I didn't raise the CC issue. Pathawi (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

We are approaching the issue from two different angles: while you seem to be focused on the map's reliability and whether it should be used, I'm more interested in knowing how the community intends to deal with this peculiar case and others like it, as I'm sure it won't be the last. That's why I brought it here in the first place. M.Bitton (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Part of what I'm saying is that that's not this case, as the chapter & book we are talking about are not claimed as the sources for the map in question. The issue you want to talk about is not the issue at play here. It could happen in the future, but what you're talking about could be applied to any case of material drawn from Wikipedia without citation. I can see how it would be worthwhile to try to brainstorm ways to deal with that, but you don't need to create the problem to try to avoid it. I think that creating it would potentially be a case of

WP:HOAX

. You are right, tho: While I recognise the utility of working out ways to avoid possible future problems, what I'm interested in is the specific case—which, after all, is what you asked about when you brought this case to this noticeboard.

I think it's very, very clearly the case that this map does not draw on reliable sources (altho a hypothetical nearly identical future map could be argued to do so). Maybe you'll disagree, but I think that the abstract (not irrelevant!) issue of how to deal with cases of apparent circular citation when there is no explicit citation might benefit from a separate conversation heading as this case does not specifically point to that question, & actually perhaps belongs over at the Village Pump, as it deals with bigger issues of evidence for argumentation. Pathawi (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're on about. Anyway, can you please answer the questions? I'm particularly interested in the copyright infringement issue. 18:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how you don't understand. I also already answered the questions underneath the comment in which you asked them. Pathawi (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I missed it, sorry about that. Anyway, this doesn't change a thing with regard to how your average editor would view the sourced maps (for obvious reasons, we can't add a note about your discussion with one of the authors). I'm particularly interested in the copyright infringement issue. M.Bitton (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I get that my discussion with an author is not citable for Wikipedia, but since Prof al-Sharkawi's map is not cited by any map on Wikipedia it also doesn't matter. I think this is potentially useful world knowledge for this conversation which is not about an actual documentary link. For the hypothetical issue that you want to address, it's actually marginally more useful to have a case in which there is no such world knowledge (as with Schmitt: she implies that she's not the source, but she doesn't say what the source is). You seem to want to know what we should do in a case where the only evidence of copying is the document itself with no form of citation.

As for copyright: I don't care about the CC issue in itself. When I send him the list of errors, I'll probably suggest that he add the appropriate credit in the second edition. There's not much one can do with a book that's probably already gone thru its full print run. Pathawi (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

What I want to know is what we should do when the a sourced map "appears" to have been taken from Commons (while there is no way to prove it). As for the copyright, failure to give proper attribution is a serious issue. M.Bitton (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I respect your concern for the specific copyright issue; I grant that attribution matters. But there's a lot that matters & I don't choose to pursue that particular issue—in part because I can't imagine a solution.

What I want to know is what we should do when the a sourced map "appears" to have been taken from Commons (while there is no way to prove it). Okay. I think that's what I understood you to be interested in & it makes sense why it matters in general. But I don't think that's this case, & it's not a priority for me to put time into for its own sake. I'd like to check out of this conversation & get back to the editing that matters more to me. If you agree with the following statement, I'll be out of your hair & you can have that conversation with other folks who are committed to working on that sort of issue for Wikipedia: The present map & its associated metadata do not claim either Schmitt or al-Sharkawi as a source. Pathawi (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The

Kudos though to you Pathawi as it's always a nice step to contact a source when reasonably available, and something not many editors take the opportunity to do, even though it's usually very fruitful. Makes the long hypothetical argument above as completely pointless as it should always have been. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

That's your plan, not mine. I don't have to do a thing, and that's mostly because I won't be able to substantiate the

claim about a living person that was made by someone else. M.Bitton (talk

) 11:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The WMF can't sue anyone, they have no rights over the map. The WMF could provide funding and assistance to the copyright holders to sue though but I'm not aware they've ever done so. I have no comment on the legality of sending a cease and desist letter if you are not a copyright holder, but I strongly suspect it will be ignored as it rightfully should. It would make far more sense IMO to send a more normal letter to the publisher informing them of the problem and suggestions on what they should to do to fix it in future editions without claiming this will resolve the problems over the earlier editions or that you are offering legal advice. While it's very likely to still be ignored, at least you aren't doing something you have no authority to do. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Source - Compliance week resides at http://www.complianceweek.com. Compliance Week, published by Wilmington plc, is a business intelligence service on corporate governance, risk, and compliance that features daily news and analysis, a quarterly print magazine, proprietary databases, industry-leading events, and a variety of interactive features and forums. This request is specific to the primary article listed in content section, but wiki should consider making compliance week a reliable source because of the high quality and technical compliance articles included on the website.

Article - Specifically I would like to reference in on Cassava_Sciences The compliance week coverage would be useful in many corporate Wikipedia articles in addition to this one.

Content - There are three articles at www.complianceweek.com that covered topics related to Cassava Sciences that were researched and sourced thoroughly. There is an editor assigned to Cassava_Sciences limiting references to the compliance week articles

   https://www.complianceweek.com/risk-management/the-cassava-sciences-saga-short-sellers-gaming-the-fda-and-the-damaging-ripple-effects/31416.article 
   Here is the talk page on the cassava sciences page where the discussion on including content that references the compliance week article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cassava_Sciences#Compliance_week_article_research_should_be_added

Two other articles at compliance week that reverence Cassava Sciences SEC investigations and DOJ related probes into shortsellers.

   1.  https://www.complianceweek.com/regulatory-enforcement/cassava-sciences-facing-widening-probe-over-short-seller-claims/31097.article
   2.  https://www.complianceweek.com/risk-management/doj-probe-into-shadowy-underworld-of-short-selling-long-overdue/31237.article Mnachtrab (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• A quick search of Google Books shows that Compliance Week is widely cited as a source/reference in reliable, unrelated publications. Though it has a miniscule circulation, it should qualify as reliable.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 00:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Compliance Week is a respected, professionally edited industry publication. I do not believe its reliability is reasonably in doubt. John M Baker (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Prior approval is not needed to use sources at Wikipedia; there is no approval process at all. You are capable,
  WP:RS and deciding whether or not to use it. This board is for solving disputes when editors disagree over sources. Where has this source been contested? --Jayron32
  13:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Re There is an editor assigned to Cassava Sciences limiting references to the compliance week articles:

1. Wikipedia does not "assign" editors to articles.
2. I am not "limiting references" to Compliance Week; rather I have (multiple times) asked editors who want to use it to answer certain questions to help establish whether the paywalled source is reliable, and I have asked why we need to use a paywalled source to say the same thing available in high-quality reliable sources already in use in the article. Those questions I have posed have not been answered.
3. The paid editing at the suite of articles related to Cassava has been raised twice at COIN, is now at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Simufilam, and has been acknowledged at User talk:SighSci#August 2022. We know that Cassava has been editing as IPs and has slanted these articles. Similar to SighSci, Mnachtrab began editing after Ponyo rangeblocked the IPs. I suggest that if Compliance Week is to be used in the article, someone will need to access it to be sure it is correctly represented, as Mnachtrab is already editing today in ways that look POV. The IP editing position has been to hype the (legal) activities of shortselling and whistleblowing and to obscure the issues raised in reliable sources about the actual allegations.

I will add mention of this thread to the COIN thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about with Ponyo. I will do my edits more fact based as I put in the COIN. a lot of the content has POV issues now with the narration or in the reference to opinion based comments in the references. Again, thanks to the people that chimed in on compliance week. I am new to wiki and just want the page to read fair and fact based. Mnachtrab (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback. I am a little new to editing on Wiki so the varied responses help as I improve the cassava sciences page. Mnachtrab (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• That a source may be paywalled is irrelevant to whether it is a reliable source and verifyable. That objection is not well taken. See
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 15:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  The question relates not to that it is paywalled, rather to a) questions about reliability were not answered on article talk (now they have been, here by independent editors), b) how Mnachtrab intends to use the source, c) why we need it when the information is already available from other sources, and d) that COI and paid editing is ongoing at this suite of articles. The issues are perhaps made more clear by reading the related thread at the COI noticeboard, wrt Mnachtrab's edits.

  I think this thread can be wrapped up as CW is held to be reliable, which is unrelated to whether it is correctly represented by a given editor, and that may be better explored at the COI noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I applaud your efforts on the Cassava Sciences article. With regard specifically to Compliance Week, high-quality industry sources like this often do provide information that is not otherwise available, and there is no prohibition on paywalled sources. If the editor adding the citation does not provide the article to you (there is no requirement to do so, of course, although it is a courtesy), I am sure you can obtain a copy quickly at

WP:RX. John M Baker (talk

) 23:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks John M Baker; perhaps I will try the RX tomorrow. The problem so far has been so much disruption on talk that progress has been impeded to the point that I couldn't get a breather to even explore that one source--there was too much else that needed attention. With COI editors now blocked, I have been able to catch up and may now have a breather to track those down. But based on what I've seen so far from the COI/paid editors, I have a pretty good idea that the time spent chasing down the source will turn out to be a wild goose chase, yielding no new information ... but I will give RX a try as soon as I have a free moment. There's enough information already out there about the short sellers, and I suspect that our COI friends are applying generalities about short selling that aren't yet proven or established for this article, where the short selling is already very well covered by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The New Yorker. I suppose I could register for a 30-day free trial, and then cancel, but those things always make me suspicious. Thx, again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Done (and it was not as hard as I feared); while preparing the request, I noticed that all of the articles are older than what we've already got, but we shall see! Thx again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to let others know, it turns out that archive.org captured those paywalled links (d'oh, dumber than I look). As I suspected, they weren't very useful, but I did pick up some minor tidbits to work in, and still working. Thx, all, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm requesting input over a dispute about sourcing at the Flag of Antarctica page. The two sources under question are worldatlas.com and gotoflags.com. They are cited for the claim "At the same time, several bases on the continent flew the Bartram flag."

This has been discussed at length in the article's talk page but we've been unable to reach a consensus. Given this is fairly article-specific, it may be best to weigh in on that thread, but I've included a summary of my arguments below. I'll invite @Vanilla Wizard to do the same if they choose.

___________________

The World Atlas source claims "In 2002, most bases on the continent started flying this flag alongside that of their own countries." The Gotoflags source claims "The first time the flag was hoisted over the continent by the editor of the popular magazine “The Ravan”[sic] – Ted Kaye in 2002. At the same time, scientific bases, which are present on the continent, also raised the flag in solidarity." The primary source written by the tourist and vexillologist who brought the flag to Antarctica names the one base the flag flew at in 2002, which was the Brazilian base. It also flew at the British museum at Port Lockroy.

One argument that's been raised to defend these sources in light of the primary source is that it may not have mentioned every place the flag flew, so the tertiary sources don't directly contradict it. Given the author lists a bay, a bluff, an island, and even his cruise ship as places where they took the flag, it seems incredibly unlikely to me that they would've omitted the fact that it flew at several other bases.

Another argument that's been raised is that the flags could've flown at the other bases after the trip the author wrote about. The primary source states the flag was raised for the first time in Antarctic on Dec. 30, 2002 and the author's trip lasted until early 2003, making it impossible for any flag raising to happen after the trip but still in the year 2002, as the tertiary sources claim.

The World Atlas article claims the Graham Bartram proposal is the official flag of Antarctica, which is a claim that is not under dispute as I believe all editors agree it is incorrect. The Gotoflags article acknowledges the flag is unofficial, but says "In 2002, the Antarctic Treaty Association, the continent was assigned an unofficial flag." (There's no such thing as an "Antarctic Treaty Association.") Both of these articles seem to conflate the Graham Bartram proposal, which has no affiliation with any governing body of Antarctica, with the emblem of the Antarctic Treaty which was adopted as the symbol of the Antarctic Treaty System in 2002, as per the primary source. Federalwafer (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Given they seem to state things as facts that are not (is this the official flag, if so when (and by whom) was it declared official?), I am unsure whether these should be considered RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Neither of these look like reliable sources. Gotoflags is a SPS and is definitely not reliable. World Atlas does have an editorial board, but its website is largely a collection of travel-related listicles.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 14:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the long-awaited third opinions; I have removed the questionable sources myself as editors here believe they are not RS.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm writing to receive feedback about the Turkish author Yılmaz Öztuna. He's used heavily in Ottoman-related articles (search results). After researching about him I found out that:

• The Turkish historian
  Dogan Gurpinar said about Öztuna in his paper Double Discourses and Romantic Nationalism
  p:59 that "..Yilmaz Öztuna, an amateur historian with nationalist and right/center-right dispositions." and in the notes he wrote that Öztuna was debunked by the historian Ali Birinci in his work Müverrih-i Mader-zadın Fülannamesi
• I also found out after reading Iazyges's concerns in WP:AFD/Battle of Ash-Shihr that Öztuna wrote a chapter titled The Political Milieu Of The Armenian Question in the book The Armenians In The Late Ottoman Period edited by the Armenian genocide denier Türkkaya Ataöv

-Suratrat (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable but use along with other sources to give balance on charged topics. Dogan Gurpinar's paper is apparently only available on academia.edu. This is a website where anyone can upload documents without peer-review. Therefore, it can contain misleading or inaccurate statements. Unfortunately, Gurpinar does not give us details on Oztuna's educational background, this makes our job hard to understand why he classifies him as amateur. Yilmaz Oztuna himself seems to be a rather obscure figure. It is difficult to find something online about him. There is a medium length encyclopedia biography about him written in Turkish. A crude machine translation shows that he studied political science in France in 1950s and has written extensively on Turkish history. However, we may need help from someone who reads Turkish to get a more accurate translation. The last concern seems to be about a work by him on Armenian history or "The Political Milieu of the Armenian Question" as cited. A quick Google Scholar search shows that "Armenian Question" is a term to refer to the situation of Armenians in Ottoman Empire. I would not take this as an indication of unreliability because it is a term also used by Armenians. "The historical dimensions of the Armenian question, 1878–1923" by RG Hovannisian appears in search results. Madame Necker (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The statements you've given above don't actually contradict what has been posed by Suratrat. Also the issue is with his writing appearing in a book by a denier of the Armenian genocide, not that the title of the chapter includes the phrase "the Armenian question". Further, were you planning on letting any of us know that you have been repeatedly reverted in your attempts to delete our category of deniers of the Armenian genocide? Protonk (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh and a propagandist for the war in Ukraine, too! Protonk (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Dogan Gurpinar's paper is apparently only available on academia.edu. A work being only available in Academia.edu doesn't mean that it's unreliable. The journal is paper-based.

This is a website where anyone can upload documents without peer-review. Therefore, it can contain misleading or inaccurate statements. Again, being available in Academia.edu doesn't mean that the work is unreliable. The paper was written by a reliable author (the historian

Dogan Gurpinar) in a reliable peer-reviewed journal "International Journal of Turkish Studies

".

Unfortunately, Gurpinar does not give us details on Oztuna's educational background, this makes our job hard to understand why he classifies him as amateur. He's a drop-out who never studied history in University.

and has written extensively on Turkish history Writing extensively on history doesn't mean that you are a professional historian or that you're not a propagandist.

The last concern seems to be about a work by him on Armenian history or "The Political Milieu of the Armenian Question" as cited. Yes, a chapter in an Armenian genocide denialist work by an Armenian denialist author. -Suratrat (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Suratrat @Protonk IJTS after all, it seems, is not really a peer-reviewed journal. Madame Necker (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

What part of what you linked supports the statement you made? The part where proquest lists it as "peer reviewed = yes"? Also, were you going to bother to address any other points that have been made, because even if a historian wrote in a non peer reviewed medium that this guy was an amateur and a genocide denialist it would not suddenly make him the opposite of those things. Protonk (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Protonk read the abstract and you will see why IJTS is not a peer-reviewed journal. Madame Necker (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

How about you quote what part of the abstract you think supports this claim. Also please feel free to not @ me as I am watching this thread and will respond if I see fit. Protonk (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Protonk I'm sure you are a well-intentioned editor. However anyone who clicks the link I shared can scroll down to the abstract section and read that why IJTS is not a peer-reviewed journal. You don't need quotes to verify that fact for abstract section is publicly available to anyone. If you are having difficulties with basic research techniques, I would suggest you to read Research Methodology by CR Kothari to increase your competency. Madame Necker (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Lmao does this actually work on people? Protonk (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you insist on carrying on with this you could at least make an argument as to why we should consider this not a peer reviewed journal, why that has anything to do with claims made by the person under discussion, and why you haven't responded to any of the other points. Protonk (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"Turkish Studies (ISSN 1308-2140) is an international, peer-reviewed journal publishing high-quality, original research." [11] Seems 100% legit.[12] What is the concern? Andre🚐 18:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: He is in a losing position and refuses to address the rebuttals to his other criticisms, so remains hyper-fixated on this one, perhaps hoping that those without ProQuest access will believe him. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan You are citing a different journal with similar name by a different institution whose ISSN does not match with each other. Madame Necker (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin Madison[13][14] What other institution are you referring to? And what is the evidence it isn't a reliable peer-reviewed journal? The ISSN may vary in "different language, regional, or physical editions"[15] Andre🚐 19:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Per the link provided by Madame Necker themselves, the journals seem identical. I think the odds that Madame is involved in some odd form of trolling are significantly higher than there being two Turkish Studies journals published in Madison, Wisconsin... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Madame Necker was already involved in trying to delete a category about Armenian genocide deniers and add guidance to the MOS and BLP pages to say you shouldn't use the term "denier." I warned them on their talk page. Andre🚐 19:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan One of them is published by a Turkish university (ISSN 1308-2140) and the other one is published by Wisconsin University (ISSN 0272-7919). Madame Necker (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Both ISSNs indicate a reliable peer-reviewed journal. Where are you seeing otherwise? "Turkish studies, one of the most respected journals in the field of Turcology and Social Sciences" [16] Andre🚐 19:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan You are still citing the journal with different ISSN (1308-2140). Madame Necker (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Madame Necker: Yes, he is. But the matter is that either would be reliable, so the distinction is effectively meaningless for the sake of backing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Previously was talking about the one in Wisconsin-Madison which is reliable, and now that was the Turkish one, both appear to be peer-reviewed journals. Andre🚐 19:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan Wisconsin one publishes papers that, contrary to the consensus on Wikipedia, rejects to use the word genocide for Armenians. Madame Necker (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the whole journal is unreliable, you just might have a couple of minority view papers that should be given low weight. Andre🚐 19:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that they published this paper means they do not have a peer-review process. Madame Necker (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a university-published institute... If you are seriously contending that allowing a fringe view to be published means they lack a peer-review process, suggest a

WP:NOTHERE block. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum

19:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iazyges Would you consider a journal reliable if it published works that falsely claimed Holocaust didn't happen? Madame Necker (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If an otherwise reliable journal allowed a fringe view to be published for the sake of academic integrity (i.e. allowing fringe views to be "taken seriously" so they can avoid gaining sympathy via victim complex), yes. I would not consider the author themselves reliable; that is the crux of this matter. An otherwise reliable journal has allowed a fringe view to be published, sure. Yılmaz Öztuna willingly put his work inside the genocide-denying book of a genocide denier. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is done for me. I don't want to further debate with someone who would consider a journal that would publish false information about Holocaust to be reliable. I don't even understand what that has anything to do with "academic integrity." Madame Necker (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Worth pointing out this is an account with about 100 edits, most of which are pursuing denial of the Armenian genocide, arguing for softening our coverage of gamergate to downplay the harassment campaign, and complaints that our coverage of the war in Ukraine is biased against Russia. Protonk (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Protonk, Suratrat, and Andrevan: With that matter thankfully over, are we in favor of proposing an RFC on the matter of depreciation/black-listing, or do we only seek informal consensus on such? I am currently leaning towards an RFC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Öztuna appears to be a notable author who has written 40 books or something, that other RS describe as opinionated or biased on the issues, so any usage of Öztuna should be attributed opinion and not fact. I don't think a new RFC is needed for this result. I think we need stronger evidence to completely blacklist Öztuna - evidence of clear distortion of fact and disinformation, or lack of adherence to corrections and fact checking. Andre🚐 20:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if we need an explicit RFC; however, I'm interested in seeing what some other editors feel about the source. My view is that "opinionated and biased" in an arena where genocide denialism is in play is fatal for what we might consider reliability. Often writers like that aren't just expressing opinion but are trying to cloud issues, misrepresent arguments and generally make recognition of underlying facts quite difficult. In that case it would be hard to treat it as we might normally do w/ a source known to have a slant. Protonk (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this topic, but from my cursory research, I didn't see a smoking gun to blacklist this author. The question is, when we say "arena where genocide denialism is in play," do we mean that Öztuna is a genocide denier? If so, then I agree, you don't need to include him at all, even attributed - just remove him unless there's some important reason to include him. Gurpinar calls him, "amateur historian with nationalist and right/center-right dispositions," but that again just tells me that he's biased and potentially not the most prestigious or well-regarded historian, but he might be a notable figure and therefore his history, even though from a pro-Turkish view, might be usable for some purpose, like sourcing dates and details from historical events. I didn't see that Öztuna is explicitly propagandistic or a denier, just that he had something published as a chapter in a denier's book - but not what that chapter said. So, I'm not defending him if he is a nationalist, but, I haven't seen the case presented to blacklist him, which I don't think we should just throw around to every right-leaning amateur -- although, don't get me wrong, I won't need much to tip me into it if there's some more solid evidence. I Google Translated some blurbs in Turkish that make him sound like a Turkish politician, cultural figure, and guy who's served on a bunch of boards and done a bunch of things in Turkey. Andre🚐 06:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm also not an expert on this topic, but it is possible that someone could be in good stead in Turkey and still be a denier of the Armenian genocide, given who perpetrated it. I should have been more equivocal in my comment above--I don't have a conclusion about his writings but it is concerning that he has appeared in a book edited by someone known to be a denier of the Armenian genocide. I hope @Suratrat: can offer some color here and if I have some time this week I will try to do some reading and see if I can offer some commentary. Protonk (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I managed to find the article by Öztuna on a Turkish website, where he writes that he prefers to use the euphemistic weasel terms for the

WP:FRINGE view. Based on this I think we have enough to say that Öztuna is a biased and therefore only-usable-for-attributed source due to his novel revisionist synthesis along nationalist-POV lines, and should be given minimal-or-no weight as a fringe minority. I still think we need examples of where the usage might involve incorrect facts or statements that are given too much weight because they're sourced to him, if we want to deprecate him for facts. Andre🚐

22:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The Micronutrient Information Center - Linus Pauling Institute (LPI) texts are used in a range of articles on nutrition, in particular in articles on polyphenols and related subjects. I appreciate the importance of reliable sources and the articles provide an - at first sight at least - good summary. However, there is no clear information on quality assurance such as peer review. The authors of some of the articles do not declare any COI. Without such information, I think that this source should not be used as only source for an article, and in the case of conflicting statements it should not be seen as the more reliable source. Editor @Zefr is likely to disagree and we had more than one discussion about this - so I think a more neutral view might be helpful.

The LPI is used e.g. here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphenol
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioactive_compound
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavan-3-ol
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioactive_compound
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavonoid

According to a statement on the website, it is supported by "DSM Nutritional Products, LLC" - a company that is involved in "Neutraceuticals".

Ggux (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with LPI, or with OSU. The statement you quote says that the company does not influence editorial content. Otherwise I see no reason not to treat it like anything else than general guidance published on a university website. I believe the resource is

WP:MEDRS-compliant as it provides an overview of scientific consensus. I mean, if we were to look for best sourcing, this could be it

.

Have you found a problematic instance of the usage of LPI anywhere? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - but the statement you quote is standard in most publications, and in some discussions publications that were funded by industry were rejected or downgraded for that very reason. E.g. [[17]], @Zefr rejects a study that was funded by industry - even though it had the same statement while regularly using LPI.

My concerns are a) that the page is not regularly updated (it is simply outdated - 2015) and b) that it is not very transparent regarding quality assurance. I agree that it is a useful resource, but I do not think it should be treated any different - or preferential - to other publications. Ggux (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

As an official research center of

WP:MEDSCI: the monographs are like individual chapters of a book on food nutrition and ongoing phytochemical research meeting "prevailing medical or scientific consensus... by ...widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities... in textbooks, or in scholarly monographs." The LPI faculty, staff

and reviewers of their online monographs are academic nutrition scientists, mostly serving as faculty and principal investigators at OSU, but occasionally senior academic reviewers from other universities provide oversight on monograph updates (shown at the bottom of individual monographs). Further, the LPI monographs are organized and written in a public-teaching format that - for topics that may not be readily understood by the general encyclopedia user - are likely preferable over an isolated journal report on individual compounds. Whether for micronutrients or phytochemicals, I am unaware of comprehensive reviews or other monographs that would be equally effective for the encyclopedia. If Ggux has similar resources, they should be provided.

Concerning updates which vary according to individual mongraphs, as for micronutrients, the LPI monographs on phytochemicals follow the general status of understanding in the field (and so may not require updates until more science accumulates), which has progressed slowly over the past 5-10 years. Perhaps Ggux could clarify what significant new science deserves to be stated in an encyclopedia that is absent from any of the above LPI monographs.

I'm missing the point on quality assurance. The LPI monographs are authored, reviewed and under the supervisory purview of endowed and distinguished professors in nutrition science, most of whom are biochemists (faculty link above). Such credentials are as high as could be expected for monograph material.

This topic has been discussed before ("LPI reviews"). There may be more recent publications on dietary compounds, but these remain poorly understood from the typical low-quality of dietary clinical research, as represented in the left pyramid of

WP:NOTJOURNAL #7-9. Zefr (talk

) 18:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not know what "official research centre" means - it is part of a University and a considerable number of Universities publish low-quality information on their websites, including prestigious places such as Harvard. The authors are named - and while the last author of the flavonoid monograph (Alan Crozier) is well known and has published extensively, other authors, e.g. Barbara Delage, has no publication in this field and does not appear to research flavonoids).

The field of polyphenols has progressed considerably in the last decade - the establishment of better analytical methods, the elucidation of the complete metabolome of some compounds and a large RCT is not what one could reasonably claim has been "no progress". But most of this happened after 2015 and is therefore not included. Indeed, Alan Crozier has conducted a study with radioactive labelled flavanols to establish the metabolome - but this is not included.

Quality assurance in systematic reviews is two-fold: the peer review process of the original study and the quality assessment in the systematic review. This is reasonably transparent and can be reproduced. A website - however good the intention - does have no clear peer review processes and it is not clear how information was obtained and interpreted, and which information was excluded.

My concern here is not about whether there are better sources or not, but that LPI-reviews are used as "gold standard" when they are not.

Finally, the claim "authored, reviewed and under the supervisory purview of endowed and distinguished professors in nutrition science" is something that I would have not expected to read here. The reputation of an author should not decide whether their work is reliable or not. I am (if one were to use the US equivalent) a distinguished professor and biochemist - according to this logic, I should be trustworthy, but I would be very worried if my word would be judged by my profession and not the reference provided.

I am worried that there is an undisclosed conflict of interest. Ggux (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

In addition to being a Vitamin C crank, Pauling was also a noted serious chemist. There are legitimate things named after him, so, you'll need to dig deeper into the work and/or claims to know if the hunch is borne out. Looking at the pagehere it is serious, not fringe material. We've got healthy skepticism here: "There are insufficient data to suggest a link between vitamin C status and the risk of developing a given type of cancer.," for example. Andre🚐 19:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: for the avoidance of doubt, this is not about the content but rather the reliability of the source. It is a website operated by an institution that is not required to provide reliable information (as for example a government organisation would be expected to do, or possibly even an NGO). Every University can set up such a website - indeed, I could create such a website and it would be impossible to know how reliable it is. It would have been reviewed by distinguished professors (no shortage of those) and written by distinguished academics (no shortage of those either) - realistically, it would have been written by a grad student. Ggux (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

A university center website written by grad students could be reliable if it's a well-reputed organization with high standards. So, the question is whether it would be presumed to be generally reliable by its reputation. I would say it's a solid maybe. Andre🚐 19:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I and numerous other medical Wikipedians have cited LPI monographs for micronutrient and phytochemical articles for over a decade. They are useful because the content is conspicuously objective, factual by cross-checking with MEDRS sources, and written in plain language for the general user. I have no relationship with LPI or OSU, and use the LPI monographs as trustworthy reviews like I would a medical textbook written by an academic (also not usually peer-reviewed).

Under

WP:BURDEN, if Ggux can produce equal or better monographs, then we await them. The primary research mentioned above - "analytical methods, the elucidation of the complete metabolome of some compounds and a large RCT"... or "a study with radioactive labelled flavanols to establish the metabolome" - is preliminary lab or early-stage semi-clinical activity, yet to be confirmed or included in a reputable review. Again, Ggux, is locked into advocating for the field of preliminary research where this person is employed, but rather should adhere to citing pertinent reviews that satisfy the general conditions of MEDASSESS. For compounds with poorly understood bioactivity, like polyphenols, the LPI reviews are balanced and complete as reasonable for current scientific understanding, with no equally informative publications in the peer-reviewed literature. If I'm wrong, Ggux will author or find them. Zefr (talk

) 20:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Zefr, I think this is more-or-less a reasonable argument, but you appear to be also a working scientist in the field, correct? So the both of you have an opinion and may be more expert than the average editor. But I want to go back to something Ggux said. It would have been reviewed by distinguished professors (no shortage of those) and written by distinguished academics

WP:MEDRS, isn't my field of knowledge, but is there not an exception for large health organizations affiliated with governments and universities, known for their good reputation to be reliable, who publish things that are written by grad students or (gasp) journalists and lawyers? Simply summarizing secondary material that down the line, probably had a very distinguished PhD, but not every source needs to, in order to be reliable. Andre🚐

20:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I have not been in an academic position for more than 20 years, and have no business or publishing interests on phytochemicals. I have been a Wikipedia editor on nutrition and phytochemical topics since 2004. As I quoted above, MEDSCI relies on "respected governmental... health authorities... in textbooks, or in scholarly monographs," for which MEDSCI would include a specialized, widely-respected research center at a state university staffed by PhD experts like the LPI staff list shows. LPI has an "about" page describing their goals, authors, and disclaimers on funding. According to this, Linus Pauling - a 2-time winner of the Nobel Prize - died in 1994, and the LPI has existed independently at OSU since 1996.

Each LPI monograph concludes with the original author, updates, and reviewers. Taking the flavonoids article for example, it was first authored in 2005 by a PhD nutrition biochemist (now deceased), updated in 2008, and again in 2015 by Barbara Delage, PhD (brief bio), and reviewed in 2016 by an outside PhD in nutrition (Crozier). All LPI articles listed here are authored, updated, and reviewed by PhDs in nutrition or biochemistry. If taken as a book authored by experts and presented by individual chapters on various dietary compounds, it would be a reliable source by any standard. Zefr (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

A book would undergo a peer review process by the publisher. The authors Drake and Belage have not published in an area related to flavonoids, so I'm not sure how they could be considered to be experts. Crozier is a renowned expert in the field and he is listed as author - but this does not change the fact that it is more than 7 years old and therefore not

WP:MEDDATE

.

WP:MEDORG

is very clear and does not include Universities - I do not find any statement that would apply to such a site.

Regarding funding: it is important to be consistent. If the funding disclaimer here is sufficient, the same should apply to other publications that have been funded by industry.

Ggux (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

What is your opinion about the section on tea ([[18]]) - written by Unilever employees? Unilever is major manufacturer of tea after all. Ggux (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zefr - I think it would be better to separate the discussion about actual content (e.g in the context of polyphenols) and the reliability of the source. The text is outdated - I think we can agree that 2015 is old, and it is unknown how the reliability has been assessed. Authors do not declare any conflicts of interest (in contrast to peer reviewed publications) and the document is funded by a company that sells food supplements.

I agree that it is a useful source - but I do not think that it should have a higher hierarchy than other, especially more recent sources.Ggux (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"Solid maybe" sounds very sensible. My problem with such a source - in comparison to a published paper - is that it is very difficult to appraise the quality without assessing the actual text, and that would be inappropriate here as it is subjective and would require more expertise. Ggux (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not what's called for, Ggux, you just need to research what the reliable secondary sources say about the Linus Pauling Institute of Oregon State, or whatever it is. If people say it is reliable and trustworthy in secondary sources, you can assume it is. If they say it's a crazytown fringe meth lab, well, you know. Andre🚐 21:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

People would probably consider Harvard to be trustworthy, yet many of the publications on various Harvard websites are of rather questionable quality. Likewise, a lot of medical advice on the websites of well-known medical schools contradicts official health advice e.g. by NIH (or NICE) in the UK.

Perhaps to illustrate my point: an esteemed colleague of mine provides a similar document (completely different field) which is very useful and allegedly quite respected (not my area of expertise, so I can't comment). But we would not allow students to refer to it and make it always very clear that they need to rely on original literature cited therein if they were to use it - for the very reason that however careful such a document has been prepared, it is bound to contain mistakes.

Ggux (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I consider the Linus Pauling Institute a reliable source and it gives the scientific consensus viewpoint on the topics it discusses and it should not be removed on any articles as it is a high-quality source. However, my only complaint with this website is that the updates are quite slow and thus they miss many recent meta-analyses of trials published between 2018 and 2022. If you look for example at their [19] flavonoids article it only uses a handful of meta-analyses of trials but they were all published in either 2012 or 2014. We are now in 2022. Most of the articles on the Linus Pauling Institute appear to have been written around 2005 with updates up to 2015 but not many updates since. This means they are missing recent research and citing a lot of old research from 2002-2005. On the Flavonoid Wikipedia article there is a statement that says "There is no clinical evidence that dietary flavonoids affect any of these diseases" (this is in regard to diabetes), the source given is the Linus Pauling Institute's article on flavonoids written in 2005 and updated in 2016. If you actually read the Linus Pauling Institute article that has a section on diabetes it says "These promising findings warrant additional randomized controlled trials to confirm preventive and/or therapeutic benefits of (cocoa) flavan-3-ols and anthocyanins in type 2 diabetes". Since this time we obviously have other reviews of trials that have been published, so we do have clinical evidence that has been published. For example a 2021 review of 28 controlled trials [20] found that "flavonoid intake has modest but statistically significant benefits in glucose metabolism, insulin sensitivity, and lipid metabolism, especially for significantly lowing fasting blood glucose, HOMA-IR, HbA1c, TG, TC, and LDL-C". I believe we should keep Wikipedia articles up to date if we have reliable references. I believe the Linus Pauling Institute is a reliable source and should be used, but it should be supplemented with high-quality modern reviews of controlled trials that bring the subject up to date. When I mean modern reviews I mean good reviews published in peer reviewed medical journals not any of that MPDI nonsense, so the systematic review I just listed from 2021 is a good source to add to the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Another example at Anthocyanin. The Wikipedia article says "There is no conclusive evidence that anthocyanins have any effect on human biology or diseases" and cites the Linus Pauling Institute article on flavonoids that was last updated in 2016. But in 2022 this review of (57 studies and 2 134 336 participants) was published [21] which does report some interesting effects. I agree that the Linus Pauling Institute website should be used but so should more recent reviews. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like it is generally reliable, but since it is sometimes out of date, where it conflicts with newer sources, the newer sources should be used. Andre🚐 22:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Is https://www.scotclans.com considered a reliable source? More specifically the historical clan information pages like https://www.scotclans.com/blogs/clans-c/clan-cathcart-places-people.

This is for the Sundrum Castle article initially, but it something I may also want to refer to on other Scottish castle articles going forward.

(I also posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland#ScotClans a reliable source?, but not sure how much traffic that page gets.)

Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, it's a blog. It claims that the author is a published subject-matter expert, but his only book is self-published, so this does not meet the criteria for subject-matter experts.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 23:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for looking into it and the clarification. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This discussion died a year ago (Archive 350) with no real consensus. So I ask: does the community consider sourcing to Social Blade reliable if constrained to, say, Infobox or similar updates within articles where notability is well established? DaydreamBelizer (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the reliability of the sources being cited in support of the claim that Machholz "spent more than 9,000 hours comet hunting in a career spanning over 50 years" in the lead section of

Recently, ජපස said this article published in the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration is not a reliable source with the statement "That you think that this journal is in any way a reliable source for reasonable opinions on climate change makes me think that I should ask for a topic ban for you from any article dealing with the subject. This is embarrassing and disconfirming for any Wikipedia editor.

Instead of having any further debates/discussions with the editor on that subject, I wanted to start a discussion here.

I think anyone who thinks the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration is a reliable source for articles on climate change is probably not fit to be editing on such subjects, it is true. jps (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems an unlikely source to be citing for content relating to climate change, on the face of it. More so after looking at the apparent fields of expertise of the authors. As it states at the top of this noticeboard though, we need to be told exactly what statements the source is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The underlying issue appears to be the text added in this edit at July–August 2022 United States floods. That gives the view of a meteorologist that the flooding in Kentucky was "simply in its own universe", and an event that would happen on average one in a thousand years before global warming made its likelihood greater. Some editors want to remove that and Elijahandskip made this comment which quotes some text from the article in the OP above as a justification for not wanting to mention climate change in connection with the floods. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

(ec) If that is the case, Elijahandskip is going to have to come up with an actual concrete argument here. Not a vague question about abstract 'reliable sources'. What exactly is the Journal article about? What does it say? What relevant expertise do the authors have on the subject? And how exactly is what they say grounds for excluding what appears to be reliably-sourced and pertinent content? I've not got access to the Journal article (it's paywalled), but could no doubt get it if I needed to. Doing so would however be a complete waste of time until we know why it is even being proposed as a source for anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• It is reliable to cite something they've said; i.e., in-text attribution but not as a statement of fact. We are not supposed to be censoring things we disagree with, rather we should be exposing it and let our readers decide based on their own research. We are seeing effects that science predicted, that is a fact. However, it is still a prediction, and just recently, residents of my little island were advised to prepare for a nasty hurricane as per a science-based prediction despite the fact that my location is out of the hurricane belt. I realize anything could happen, so I took precautions. The hurricane ended up being a few hours of greatly needed showers. I'm of the mind that government agencies, such as Parks and Recreation, the USGS, Army Corps, Forestry etc. all have access to other government resources like NOAA, NASA, etc. and they all most likely follow protocol. Atsme 💬 📧 11:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to include in-text attribution cited to non-experts in pocket journals in completely unrelated fields with measly citation counts and dubious prominence. "Climate scientists say X, but these experts in park administration say Y" is almost the prototypical example of

WP:GEVAL. jps (talk

) 11:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup. And it seems that we aren't even being asked to quote the Parks and Recreation article - just being asked whether the existence of this article (or some text or other from it) is grounds to exclude other reliably-sourced and relevant content. To which the answer has to be a definitive 'no'. Not without a damn sight more explanation than we've seen here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I read the article. It can be read one of two ways: 1) we should give what they deem "

WP:GEVAL traps of its own because when you're trying to promote "conservation" in the context of public outdoor space, it seems the authors feel they have no other choice but to take the denialists seriously. jps (talk

) 11:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

If that is a fair summary of what the article is about, it would seem that whether it is 'reliable' or not is more or less irrelevant. It appears not be be being cited for anything relevant to the article topic at all - just used (or abused) as an exercise in hand-waving. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This scans as a fair summary to me. If someone wants a copy of the full text to make their own summary shoot me an email. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Everyone seems to have come to the complete wrong conclusion as to why I started this RS, so let me put it in exact plain words. It was started NOT as a way to say to exclude any climate change information from the article (as I actually support adding it at a later time). The entire use of my quote from that journal’s article (written by a PhD candidate from University of Utah, a professor at the University of Utah, and an assistant professor at Clemson University) specifically and only as a way to show that people CAN have different opinions on the topic of climate change. A no point did this have anything to do with adding any information to an article. In fact, this was a reply done as I point-blank stated in the edit summary “1 final reply to the entire discussion”. I then received a fairly nasty worded message from
  talk
  ) 13:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  If A no point did this have anything to do with adding any information to an article please stop wasting the Wikipedia community's time with irrelevancies. When you have a specific article change you want to make with a specific citation, feel free to come back.

  MrOllie (talk

  ) 13:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Saying it is unreliable would mean saying a PhD candidate from University of Utah, a professor at the University of Utah, and an assistant professor at Clemson University published unreliable information. What an utterly ridiculous statement to make. Elijahandskip, you have been editing Wikipedia since 2019. You have made over 4,000 article-space edits. If after all this time, you are really incapable of understanding fundamental Wikipedia policy on sourcing and reliability, as seems self-evident from this exercise in time-wasting, you should expect the sort of response you see here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

TBH if this article is emblematic of what sources you want to bring to the table and this thread is emblematic of your reaction to criticism, perhaps you shouldn't be editing climate change articles. Protonk (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

If Elijahandskip truly cannot understand sources this way, he should definitely be tbanned from WP:WEATHER. He already received a warning from ArbCom. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Withdrawn RS discussion. As stated above, there is no reason to have a pointless discussion if this is not being considered as a citation for any article.
  talk
  ) 23:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. 74.101.118.197, if requesting a RS discussion means I should receive a t-ban from weather, then you also should receive a t-ban from weather with the Aon/NOAA damage total RS discussions earlier. Either way, I am done with these stupid discussions and going back to creating my weather draft of

talk

) 23:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Handled like a real adult. Protonk (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay I came here really late, but thanks for having invited me @

good faith, even if it was not the right thing to do (and I would like to point out that starting a discussion here was suggested to them by jps). Consequently, I must admit that I found the tone of the discussion a bit harsh: We have people citing Twitter and worse everyday, and just being an experienced editor is no safeguard against making bad calls every once in a while. I have found Elijahandskip's behaviour to have been civil overall, and I would rather have one needless discussion started in good faith than any sort of fighting. I regret you fellows feel like you've had your time wasted above, but I think your chastising of Elijahandskip has been excessive. –LordPickleII (talk

) 11:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Is Inducks a RS? It was never discussed here. I was under impression that it is a fanpage, although our article is quite positive in its coverage. It does however say that Inducks is "created and maintained by both amateurs and professionals". They have some about pages like here, and frankly, I can't tell the difference between what they are doing (effectively hundred of volunteers working together, with some input from industry professionals) and what any large wiki on fandom is doing. And while they don't use MediaWiki software, stuff like You're very welcome to help us. makes it seems like this is a wiki community, just not using a wiki, and outputing something in a more catalogue format (or perhaps wikidata-ish) than a tranditional wiki of fanwiki. Still, as said, my point is - what makes them more reliable than any large fanwiki found on Fandom and like? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is a tough one. A search of Google Books and Google Scholar shows that Inducks is extensively relied upon as a source in independent, reliable, published books and articles. That would lead me to conclude that, notwithstanding that amateurs have the ability to input information into the indices, it should be regarded as a reliable source. On the other hand, the same could be said of Wikipedia. The difference would seem to be that Inducks does have a professional, expert editorial staff that reviews and corrects information submitted by amateurs, though I get the impression that it may not be in real time, and there may be lags between some submissions and the editorial process. And, also, unlike Wikipedia, I don't see any sources saying that Inducks gets things egregiously wrong on occasion. I was particularly intrigued by this journal article on how the site works, which is leaning me to the reliable side. [22]
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 14:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  @

  Banks Irk Can you elaborate more on the "professional, expert editorial staff"? My reading of this suggests that their editorial controls are based on volunteers with unknown credentials, just like a wiki (and Wikipedia). And yes, comparison to Wikipedia is apt, Wikipedia is also often cited by scholars, and "mostly reliable". Yet we don't cite it, for good reasons. To say that we allow Wikipedia-like sites, but not Wikipedia, would be a weird form of self-discrimination... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

  03:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• If I'm reading the journal article that I linked above correctly, there are one to three administrators per country, whose approval is needed for all new content. And, while it does not document the qualifications of all the admins, the ones in France apparently include the head of the publishing division of Disney Publications Worldwide France. That is a significant difference from Wikipedia in terms of qualified editorial oversight.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 19:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello. There's been some discussion on the talk page of Bald and Bankrupt regarding the reliability of sources. I'd like to get some opinions as to whether the following are generally reliable

• [23]
• [24]
• [25]

Thank you OrgoneBox (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The first citation is not reliable per

PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c

) 03:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The second source "falls under the umbrella of ANO TV-Novosti" according to its about page. ANO TV-Novosti is listed as generally unreliable at

talk

) 13:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

here where the citation says "Modern researchers have failed to find any record of this event in

oooooooh, good question. Like, they're going to be pretty good in almost all cases - but then, that's also true of Wikipedia, and we can't use that for much the same reasons. Museum exhibition texts tend to be tertiary sources. Written by experts, though. Often cribbed from Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to generally categorise them - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

How reliable is a given museum? Some are set up to curate a particular PoV. For example it's no good asking the

legally contracted to say that it was the Wrights. But that does not stop them from being among the best independent RS for pretty much everything else aeronautical. We have to take each museum on its merits; are its staff academically qualified or just a random collection of enthusiasts, does it spout a lot of hyperbole, etc. etc. In other words, take each case on its merits and look for corroborating sources. For example way the majority of experts do support the Wrights' primacy. On the other hand I once found a museum displaying a replica of a wrongly-identified German WWII aircraft project; they have now updated their information to identify it correctly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk

) 13:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Is Grimdark Magazine an RS? Link here, seems to have an about us page, and review guidelines (is this editorial policies?) I couldn't find previous RSN entries discussing this, a specific WikiProject might classified this, though I'm unsure. I've came across this ref twice while patrolling

It's a quite well run fanzine. I think it would be reliable for the opinions of the writers, but wouldn't be useful for establishing notability. I'm not sure whether any of the writers' opinions should be included in any given article either, if any of them are regularly published in better sources, then maybe. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! That's certainly helpful, I'll assume that this doesn't help with notability. VickKiang (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just some guy, but I wouldn't use it in a notability discussion personally.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute over whether allegations against the streamer

I've taken a read through the past discussions and have some thoughts. I'm going to start with the past discussions, before moving to the current day.

WP:NEWSORG

. As such I would be minded to discount the perspectives from that discussion that the site is unreliable, due to it's former disclaimer.

The 2016 discussion. This one is messy. Really messy. The Mary Sue is directly mentioned only five times in that discussion, in three comments; [26], [27], [28], and does not appear to be the central focus of that discussion. With regards to the first comment, I would be minded to discount it, as despite what the proponents said, Gamergate was not about ethics in video game journalism. The second and third comments address an inaccuracy in the first, with regards to how many times The Mary Sue had been cited on the Gamergate article, and neither directly address the site's reliability.

Bringing this back to the current day. The Mary Sue was acquired by the GAMURS Group in November 2021, and shortly thereafter published a corrections policy. Since the acquisition, I've been unable to find any egregious or obviously false content on their site, or criticism of them by others for publishing falsehoods or misleading statements. While I cannot attest to their older content, their current content is subject to their corrections policy, and they clearly tag corrections articles, and any inline corrections made post publication are given bold text; [29], [30], [31].

Based on their current practices, the existence of their corrections and fact checking policies, and that they actually make it clear when they make or publish a correction, I would say that The Mary Sue is a reliable source. I'd also say, based on their about us page, they are also a biased source, in this case pro feminist and LGBT inclusive, but a biased source is not inherently an unreliable one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th I concur with biased, yet reliable. Many of their authors who are clearly identified have journalistic backgrounds, and on case by case basis, we can identify less journalistic pieces and weigh them accordingly. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Sideswipe9th and Shushugah that, given the change in management, the Mary Sue appears to have improved in its reliability. Andre🚐 20:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of those recent changes to the site. They've clearly upped their game and laying out explicit editorial policies like that makes it quite clear to me that they are, at least with their current articles, a reliable source. Silverseren^C 20:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Generally Unreliable Much of the analysis here focuses on that the website has changed its design rather than whether it has statistically improved its content accuracy. Madame Necker (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Except that's just a blatant lie? The analysis above is that they've changed their editorial policy and now have review and correction policies, which are a required hallmark of a reliable source. And there's no evidence of there being anything wrong with their content accuracy. Silverseren^C 20:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll respond as I'm the person who posted the analysis. I've not discussed or formed any of my analysis on a redesign of the website. In fact, looking at the site on the Wayback Machine, the design has been pretty consistent for the last two years.

What I have addressed however is the addition of a fact checking, and a corrections policy, sometime after their acquisition in November 2021. Those policies, as far as I can tell, did not exist prior to the acquisition, and as Silver seren has said, are a hallmark of what we consider a reliable source. I've also linked examples of their corrections articles category, as well as inline corrections made to articles published from circa the date of their acquisition to present.

In the time since my last reply, I've also attempted to search if there are any examples of content for which they have been criticised for publishing, by other reliable sources, post acquisition, or content that is otherwise demonstrably false and has not been corrected, and have not found any results. Of course, that is also not to say that such content doesn't exist, only that I've been otherwise unable to find it. If you or any other editor knows of false or misleading content published post acquisition, or of content critical of the website again published post acquisition, then I'd encourage linking it here to it can be analysed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The question is not "is this a reliable source generally" for uncontentious stuff like entertainment news, but "is this source reliable and/or DUE for a highly contentious BLP claim". In my opinion, the answer is no. GAMURS group websites are generally low quality entertainment outlets. Basic stuff like having a corrections policy and making corrections doesn't make something a reliable source per se, this are simply basic expected standards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Except the "highly contentious BLP claim" is about a person making the claim, which is already attributed. Mary Sue is a fine source on that the person made that claim. Silverseren^C 20:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Maybe except that that's just a blatant lie? Madame Necker (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The statement presented by Alduin above to be included in the article is attributed to Keffals directly. Meaning that the source reference is being used only to support that she made that statement. Which is not the same as presenting a claim in Wikivoice. Silverseren^C 20:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The question is, is Keffals claim DUE weight in to include in a BLP, when we don't have a preponderance of clearly reliable sources like the Washington Post that mention it. Washpo's article on the topic makes no mention of Keffal's claim that Destiny collaborated with Kiwi Farms, only stating that [Keffals] has openly clashed with Destiny, another politics-focused streamer who was recently banned from Twitch.... Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Then why are you here? WP:DUE has nothing to do with this board. Mary Sue is a reliable source, especially for an attributed statement. So there's nothing else to do here. Silverseren^C 21:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC

Why are you here? Read the noticeboard header: This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. Emphasis mine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

And it is reliable in context. Whether that meets due weight or not is an entirely separate discussion, which has nothing to do with this board. Silverseren^C 21:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Silver seren Are you getting these flimsy ideas by reading Redong Sinmun? Madame Necker (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Why haven't you been banned as a disruptive SPA? Protonk (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed yet, @Protonk:, they also just forumshopped your reply to them in another thread on this board over to ANI in the Nightscream discussion. Silverseren^C 21:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. Protonk (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what that has anything to do with source's unreliability. Madame Necker (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

True that is not the question, however given what I've lain out above with regards to a corrections and fact checking policy, and the overall weakness of the two prior discussions on the site, I would be minded to say that it is

WP:MREL. Sideswipe9th (talk

) 20:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Its generally reliable in the same sort of way the
  Huffington Post is - you've got to keep in mind that much of their work may have a sort slant, but they still meet our standards. (Editorial oversight, credentialed writers, etc. Sergecross73 msg me
  21:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Concur with Sergecross73 Andre🚐 21:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Based on Sideswipe9th's helpful rundown I think the source should be considered reliable for the claims and context in question. Specifically this kind of thing is their beat, they are unlikely to misrepresent the facts at hand, and the application here is incredibly narrow--we are being asked whether or not we can use them to corroborate and interpret a claim which can be verified via publicly available info. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• generally reliable since it appears that they have updated their review processes recently. Although it probably could have been used as a source for the whole Destiny/Keffals harassment drama thing anyway, but whatever. Nothing wrong with an RfC. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the reliability, as the article linked presents a wrong statement "Destiny has been since banned". A short google search tells us that Destiny has been banned on [32] March 23rd 2022 . I suggest contacting Mary Sue and seeing how well their review process works. Until then, it is a very strange suggestion to reinstate them on an wrongful article 2003:F3:1732:400:F5EC:3E8C:4327:5955 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how that contradicts the Mary Sue story, was he banned prior to Keffal's ban rather than since? Either way, sportskeeda is not a very reliable source itself.

talk

) 12:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is saying he was banned after he supposedly lied about her and weaponized Kiwifarms against her. Which I assume is correct since the Kiwifarms stuff has been going on for awhile now and he was banned in March. What the article is not saying is that he was banned after she was. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right, hopefully the IP editor comes back to this page and sees this so they can clarify. In the absence of any clarification, the Mary Sue article doesn't seem to conflict with Bonnell's ban date.

talk

) 17:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I was getting at the fact that despite being heavily editorialized, the article does have a few facts in it. Along the fact that Keffals was banned, another fact mentioned is that "Destiny has been since banned". What time does "has since" refer to in your opinion? At first glance it would appear to the Keffals ban, as that it what the article is about. Which would be obviously false, as the ban happened in July. If it indeed does refer to "weaponized a hate forum" it would also be false, as the ban happened before the forum thread Keffals is refering to was created.

But even the falsehood aside, as we are discussing the reliability of this publication, doesn't it kind of stand out to see some of the few facts actually mentioned in the article to be without any sourcing? That doesn't exactly scream reliability to me. 2003:F3:1732:400:2C70:BE69:B596:DB2B (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Just for clarification, do people contributing to the discussion think the Mary Sue is reliable for contentious statements of fact in BLPs? I understand most here seem to think it is reliable for attributed statements such as "X said Y did [accusation]", but would the Mary Sue be a good source for something like "X did do [accusation]" too? This isn't in connection to the statement being disputed on the Destiny page as views on that are pretty clear, but moreso because this conversation will probably change the consensus on RSP which is widely used to gauge reliability. Thanks.

talk

) 17:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. I feel like it's a none issue because contentious statements of fact can't usually be put in BLPs unless they are referenced to multiple sources anyway. So is Mary Sue a good source for something like "X did do [accusation]"? On it's own no, but then nothing is. If it's being used as backup for other references? sure, but then why does it even matter? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The point is that there are some sources which are reliable enough for certain uses but we generally wouldn't use as a source for contentious BLP claims. I know that contentious claims require multiple sources, my question was would it be acceptable as one of those multiple sources. Sorry, thought that was clear but should have made it explicit I guess.

talk

) 12:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say The Mary Sue in general is "additional considerations apply": it's often good for reviews and for some types of basic information, but I wouldn't use it in any kind of topic bordering on gossip, speculation, or internet culture minutiae. This is in line with the other GAMURS publications like Dot Esports that I am familiar with, although I'd rank The Mary Sue above that. However, we'd need a full RfC to properly re-evaluate the

BLP sensitive claims, which accusing a living person of serious misconduct (possibly even illegal activity) counts as, even for attributed opinion. And I stand by this. — Bilorv (talk

) 17:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Generally unreliable [33] analyzing their content shows that it is heavily opinionated to the point where it distorts the facts. An example of extremely biased articles is from today alone, [34] with the title "John Oliver Points Out New UK Prime Minister Liz Truss Has Gotten a Bit of a Free Pass on Her BS This Week." The source is simply an unreliable blog. Bill Williams 23:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Journalist Zia ur-Rehman in NYT March 6, 2022 writes:

".. The Aurat (women) marchers have claimed victories. .. .. The government has also passed a measure allowing the chemical castration of convicted rapists, another demand of the marchers. .."

To best of my knowledge, actually feminist opinion in Pakistan on chemical castration was exactly opposite.

For example leading Pakistan English Dawn (newspaper) March 8, 2022 reports ".. The Lahore chapter also advocates structural reforms that prevent patriarchal violence rather than short-term solutions such as capital punishment and chemical castration. .."

So can above mentioned statement in NYT report be used to suggest feminist support to chemical castration in Pakistan?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple sources, example, stating that the Lahore chapter does not approve of cc as a remedy. I did not find anything relating to cc in the demands of the other two chapters so it is possible that the NYT report refers to demands from them. What I would do in the absence of further evidence that NYT is wrong, is cite the NYT as saying what they say but also cite the sources saying that is not the position of the Lahore chapter. Chasing down the positions of the other two chapters if that is possible, would resolve this. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this the right venue for this question? The

reliable source. The question appears to be either about the interpretation of the report or the accuracy of what is reported. Robert McClenon (talk

) 03:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'm confused by how we get from marchers to feminists in general, there may be a lot of generalized overlap between those two categories but NYT attributing something to the marchers is not the same as attributing them to feminists writ large unless theres something I'm missing here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Surely a website written by one guy who occasionally uses Wikipedia and eyewitness accounts as sources is unacceptable for history articles here. [35]

Or the History channel? [36]

Someone can point out a higher standard than that right? 171.66.135.118 (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• The two edits you link to were from the same editor (Danial Bass) on very different articles. I would also note that the first edit was reverted, and DB apologized for the sloppy sourcing in a subsequent edit summary (see that page history).

What do you want to achieve here? RSN is for determining whether sources are reliable, but you seem to already have an idea here. If you want to convince DB to change their ways of editing, asking them nicely on the talk page seems more likely to work than an oblique reference on a noticeboard where you did not ping them. If you want them sanctioned, you will have to make your case at the appropriate place and with much more evidence than a couple of small-mistake edits. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)