Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 390

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.

Archive 385

←

Archive 388

→

Newsmax interviewee's opinions

I added some content presenting the opinion of Rabbi Yaakov Menken, who is the Managing Director at Coalition for Jewish Values. He made that opinion during a

WP:NEWSMAX

is a deprecated source".

I personally do not agree with deprecating Newsmax entirely, but I'm not going to discuss that at here. For now, I would like to propose a change which allows the opinions of such interviewees to be added in articles, based on the

WP:RSP's saying "Fox News talk shows, including …, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions." In other words, I propose that rule be applied to Newsmax interviews as well. Matt Smith (talk

) 11:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it's fine as is - David Gerard (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's not fine because it prevents such interviewees' opinions from being heard and therefore is unfair. Please specify your reason. Matt Smith (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Given the reasons Newsmax is deprecated, if they are the only outlet reporting someone's views that is a strong indication that those views should be left out of Wikipedia.

MrOllie (talk

) 12:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not a report; it's an interview. Matt Smith (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

A distinction without a difference.

MrOllie (talk

) 14:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm very much with Blueboar, below. In theory, despite deprecation, we could use a Newsmax interview for the opinion of the interviewee, but we would need some reason to show that such an opinion was

WP:DUE for inclusion--usually by showing that it was noted in reliable sources. Short of that, I don't think inclusion is appropriate, but reasonable minds may certainly differ on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

) 14:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. My addition is to balance the opposite opinion. There is currently no overwhelming consensus on the topic (whether Trump's comment is antisemitic or not), so my understanding is that there is no issue of

WP:DUE. Matt Smith (talk

) 14:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

When I mention

WP:DUE, what I mean is representing all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Newsmax has been judged not a reliable source, so the fact that the opinion appeared there doesn't really fulfill the need for published, reliable sources. If, say, a whole bunch of newspapers printed articles to the effect of "hey, look what this person said in a Newsmax interview," it would certainly be due for inclusion to me. But I am not seeing anything along those lines here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

) 14:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The talk shows of Fox News is currently considered unreliable (by participants of the discussion at that time) as well, but they still can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. So my understanding is that whether Newsmax is considered reliable should not prevent its interviewees' opinions from being used for attributed opinions. Matt Smith (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup! I agree entirely. This is what I am saying: Newsmax' status does not involve a categorical prohibition on attributed opinion found there. What you have not demonstrated (at least to me) was that any reliable sources took note of this particular opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Since the

WP:RSP does not require any reliable sources to take note of an opinion presented in Fox News talk shows, I suggest that we don't ask Newsmax interviews for such a requirement as well. Matt Smith (talk

) 14:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Fox News opinions are still very much subject to an analysis of whether they are

WP:RSP only addresses the former--as a determination of whether something is due for inclusion is not going to be source-wide, but heavily dependent on context. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

) 15:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for not being able to follow well, but would you mind shedding some lights on whether the specific Newsmax interviewee's opinion (Rabbi Yaakov Menken) has any serious issue of

WP:DUE? --Matt Smith (talk

) 15:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not

MrOllie (talk

) 15:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Interviews are tricky… first we have to examine the reliability of the outlet: does it have a reputation for accurately representing the views of the interviewee, or does it have a reputation for presenting what the interviewee said in ways that skew their views.

Then we have to examine the reliability of the interviewee. Are they an expert on the topic they are being interviewed about? For example… a politician would likely not be an expert on the science of climate change, but could be considered an expert on the politics of climate change (such as the flaws in a specific bit of climate change legislation).

And, of course, we have to consider DUE WEIGHT… are the views of the interviewee appropriate to mention in a specific article. Are they fringe or are they more mainstream?

In short, CONTEXT is important. The same interview might be appropriate and reliable in one article, and completely inappropriate and unreliable in another. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have watched the interview, and I would say the interview does not have those issues. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

RSOPINION allows for using individual statements to be used with attribution from non RS sources. What then must occur is to whether the individual or their opinion is DUE for the content (eg the essence of Blueboar's statement above) (This assumes that we don't have a Daily Mail situation where people's words have been known to be altered and thus we can't even trust the source a accurate). Masem (t) 14:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Could you please elaborate on "DUE for the content"? Matt Smith (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for jumping down here, but the conversational threads are converging and it seems efficient. You can think of

WP:DUE as asking whether the information at issue has "mindshare" in the reliable sources. If it is in every major newspaper and the scholarly literature, etc., it is clearly due. If it is in no reliable sources, it is clearly undue. If it is in, say, one major newspaper, then you have a situation where it might be argued either way. I can see no reliable sources mentioning this interview or the opinions expressed therein. If not for this policy, every statement of opinion would be fair game for inclusion, which would obviously become quickly untenable. I have not seen any discussion of this opinion in reliable sources, so for the moment, I would argue that it is not due for inclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

) 15:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

What is and is not DUE also depends on which specific WP article we are working on… to give an example: the fringe views of an author who has written books about how the Apollo 11 moon landing was faked might be DUE to mention in a bio article about that author (per WP:ABOUTSELF)… but completely UNDUE to mention in our articles on the Apollo 11 mission.

To relate this all to the NewsMax interview of Rabbi Menken… what specific WP article are we talking about? The article on Menken himself, or on some other topic? Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's Truth Social, and the added words came after "Multiple organizations criticized Trump's comment as condescending and as repeating a "dual loyalty" antisemitic trope.[157][158]" I assume that nobody means it's due to mention the criticism of Mr Trump, but not due to mention the defence. But the "deprecated source" objection was poor. If the objection had about WP:UNDUE (which is part of WP:NPOV not WP:RS) there might have been less kerfuffle. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

Ah… a situation where I would deem both the “accusation” and the “defense” UNDUE (ie none of it should be mentioned - thus resolving the POV conflict entirely). But, yeah, that is more a NPOV question and not really a reliability issue. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding something, but are you suggesting that it's not ideal to include both the “accusation” and the “defense” in the specific section of the article? Matt Smith (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m saying that the entire section is somewhat UNDUE and should be seriously reworked or cut. Blueboar (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I see and agree with a rework. Some contents do not even belong to that section, such as the "licensing agreement with TMTG requiring him [...]" and "Truth Social experienced a significant uptick in downloads following the [...]" --Matt Smith (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

See

WP:RECENTISM. Just because there's a burst of coverage about something that causes outrage doesn't mean it has legs to actually be of encyclopedic value. We need a LOT more editors to recognize this stance to cut down endless debates about sources, DUE and so on. Masem (t

) 02:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link of WP:RECENTISM. From my understanding (based on the explanatory essay), the said “accusation” and the “defense” are just recent events which are of transient merits. That is, both of them might not be worthwhile for including. Is that correct? Matt Smith (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. There may be longer-term implications, but we cannot crystal-ball that, so as it seems to be a typical "person make statement that creates outraged reaction, then blows over", it really is beyond appropriate to include anything surrounding it until it had critical impacts (such as a lawsuit on the matter) Masem (t) 12:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Thanks for the confirmation. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the article, that whole section should be heavily trimmed. Scholarly research on the information networks and clustering of Truth Social users, or the spread of information/disinformation would be due. Random Trump tweets (or "truths" as they're now called) just don't belong there. Side note, I second your reasoning higher up above on using interviews as sources. DFlhb (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC) edit: when I say "your reasoning", I'm referring to Blueboar. Seems I made a mistake in the indentation. DFlhb (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm fine with trimming the whole section. Since some editors have pointed out that the argument on antisemitism is more related to NPOV and RECENTISM, I'm planning to start with removing the paragraph of the transient argument if there is no editors suggesting other solutions. Matt Smith (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

RSOPINION allows for using individual statements to be used with attribution from non RS sources. I know we've had this conversation before, but that's not really what

WP:RS sourcing. --Aquillion (talk

) 17:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This is more a question for the NPOV noticeboard. Newsmax did not misquote Menken, but then it's not the problem.

The section is pretty bad and needs a rewrite. But if you ask me if this works, well, it appears that CJV is a fairly non-mainstream American Orthodox Jewish group that the right-wing media ecosystem seems to adore. IDK about the specific preferences of each rabbi but they seem to be defending normally indefensible positions/statements so long as the political allegiance of whoever said iis Republican.

In my view, their mentioning is not DUE - hell, they don't even have a WP article of their own yet, even though it exists for 5 years. Only if you frame it as an "ultra-Orthodox pro-Trump group of American rabbis", then maybe, but then again a group that is pro-Trump will defend Trump whenever he is under fire, that sort of goes without saying, and we should avoid too much focus on recent events. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that left-leaning media like The Forward and Haaretz would criticize CJV. But why is it indefensible to defend people who quoted Hitler purely for the purpose of illustrating the danger of having someone instill bad values in children? When one wants to let the public know that it is dangerous to our society if someone can brainwash our next generation, I think it's fine for him/her to sarcastically quote Hitler and say "Hitler was right on one thing: He said, whoever has the youth has the future." So I'm not seeing the problem in that part. Matt Smith (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with either Haaretz or the Forward - the issue is trusting their reporting, not the bias of the opinion section. WSJ's journalism is hardly conservative, but the opinion section sure is. So, I believe these sources give an impression of what this organization is.

Also, in FORUM territory, in public, it's better just to drop the reference to Hitler, particularly if he is not being quoted sarcastically. Approvingly reciting a passage from Mein Kampf is normally going to insult Jews for obvious reasons, even if that is one thing and even if she didn't actually mean to insult anyone. But that's OT, my assessment that mentioning their position is UNDUE still stands. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I personally tend to take what left-wing outlets say about conservatives with a pinch of salt. But that's me.

As for the congresswoman's quote, I'm not a native English speaker after all and it looks like my use of the word "sarcastically" was inaccurate. My apology for that. What I was trying to convey is that she quoted Hitler warningly to illustrate the danger of youth brainwashing. The context of her quote is: "You know, if we win a few elections, we’re still going to be losing, unless we win the hearts and minds of our children. This is the battle. Hitler was right on one thing: He said, ‘Whoever has the youth, has the future.’ Our children are being propagandized." And she later also said "I sincerely apologize for any harm my words caused and regret using a reference to one of the most evil dictators in history to illustrate the dangers that outside influences can have on our youth" So the purpose of her quote was very clear that it was to illustrate the danger of youth brainwashing and was in no way endorsing Hitler. Matt Smith (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON, and leave more space and oxygen for other people. It's not the number of comments that establishes a consensus. Bishonen | tålk
09:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC).
To respect your feeling about my comments, I will only address the "likely to edit conflict others, as you did me just now". I never do that kind of irrational/disruptive thing to others editors. Those little tweak edits are either grammar corrections or rephrasings. Kindly
assume good faith. Not sure whether "as you did me just now" means I overwrote your comment because I can't recall that happened, but I'm sorry if I accidentally did that. Matt Smith (talk
) 11:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem, as it has been across a number of deprecated sources, is that there has never been an agreement on what it means to be deprecated. And users have enforced maximalist understandings of that through reverts across the entire encyclopedia. If one is unwilling to continue edit-warring with them, their position that deprecated means entirely verboten wins out. Something should be done about that, but the last time it came up it just, as it always does, died an uneventful death, and the users who enforce their maximalist view continue to prevail by sheer force of will. nableezy - 10:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

That's highly concerning for multiple reasons, not least of which that it's far easier to find another citation for a cited passage (even if the only citations are unreliable, they still give very strong context) than it is to find citations for completely uncited passages. If you have any ideas of how to address that, I'd be interested in heping. DFlhb (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Not usable unless independent reliable sources positively cite a particular piece of its reporting/commentary (a la National Enquirer and the John Edwards extramarital affair, although in such cases too it is better to cite the more trustworthy secondary sources while crediting the original reporting) because one concern with such POV deprecated sources is that they spread misinformation by providing a platform for unreliable/non-noteworthy voices to be aired (cf the Dominion and Smartmatic lawsuits) and another is that the segments may be edited to present a partial/distorted view of what the inteviewee actually said (cf, Tucker Carlson's recent Kanye West interview). For these reasons we need to rely on a secondary reliable source to kick-the-wheels and not cite the primary interview itself. Abecedare (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Not usable per Abecedare. Andre🚐 21:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Not usable - Old cartoon of advertisers reading the reviews of a new Broadway play that went something like: “Wonderful example of bad directing”, “Amazing this ever opened”, “Don’t watch this play”. So they put together the poster attributing each review: “Wonderful”, “Amazing”, “Watch this play”. Deprecated means unusable as a source because the source cannot be trusted. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Firmly oppose a ban on sourcing interviews to deprecated sources: many media outlets are considered unreliable by Wikipedia. But that doesn't mean they don't interview notable people. It should be decided case-by-case whether they can source a certain statement, based on common sense. There's no need to be categorical, as Wikipedia isn't being flooded with comments sourced to such interviews. When someone goes on air, in a live segment, we can watch the video and see for ourselves whether the comments have been misrepresented. I also agree entirely with Blueboar's arguments on the reasoning that should go into case-by-case decisions. Fringe interviewees should obviously not be included. In this particular case, I partly agree with Szmenderowiecki; they're a right-wing Jewish advocacy group; I wouldn't call them fringe or extremist, just partisan, around to the same degree Media Matters is biased to the other side; in my opinion, as a non-Orthodox Jew with a fair few Orthodox friends, they accurately represent the median of Orthodox Jewish politics in America; hence, not fringe, the same way that a Hispanic advocacy group isn't fringe. Fringeness has nothing to do with being a numerical minority, as Jews and Hispanics are, fringe groups are groups that operate within a different 'reality' altogether, which just isn't the case for CJV. DFlhb (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for Baitul Futuh Mosque

[https://www.muslimsinbritain.org/resources/masjid_report.pdf] which as what seems to be a mainstream Islamic source is likely to be prejudiced against an Ahmadiyya mosque. Added here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baitul_Futuh_Mosque&diff=1106664894&oldid=1073061830]. Doug Weller talk 12:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Muslimsinbritain.org's about is apparently broken and there's a governance page that's been under construction since 2017 and contains little. The report and the website appear to be the work of Mehmood Naqshbandi, per the pdf and copyright details. They are mentioned by other sources as a researcher, see here or here and are treated as reliable.
Naqshbandi says Baitul Futuh only has a pray space of 3000-4000 thousand, and this matches the Baitul Futuh own website. But it's total capacity is 10,500. Naqshbandi is listing Mosque size by pray space capacity, but is that the claim being made about Baitul Futuh by other sources? The language used in the diff provided is obviously problematic and needs to be rewritten, but the original version would also need to be rewritten to clarify the claim and possibly work in Naqshbandi listing. Baitul Futuh has been reported as the largest mosque in Western Europe with a total capacity of 10,500 worshippers. However the actual total pray space is for 4,000 worshippers, a number similar to other mosques in Britain, for instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

tl:dr Yes it's reliable but it isn't necessary stating the same metric as other sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

RFC (The Daily Dot)

IT'S COMPLICATED

In this RfC, editors discussed the extent to which The Daily Dot is a reliable source. Editors discussed a number of topics related to the online publication's reliability, providing a variety of arguments on the topic. Overall, this discussion established no community consensus as to whether or not the source is generally reliable, but a rough consensus that the source should be used with attribution in cases where the publication is known to be

biased

or for when it is the source of a contentious claim of fact.

Editors in support of the claim that The Daily Dot is generally reliable indicated that the publication possesses a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and that insufficient evidence has been presented that goes against that reputation. Several editors stated that they saw insufficient (or no) evidence that The Daily Dot publishes misinformation or refuses to produce corrections when information is wrong, and several editors claimed there is sufficient

WP:BIASED

(which notes that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective) in defense of the source's reliability.

Editors in opposition to the claim that The Daily Dot is generally reliable argue that the reporting from the website is of variable or deficient quality in several ways. Some explicitly describe the website as being full of

notability

requirements. Others argue that, while the source is probably reliable for mundane reporting on internet culture, it is not a source that would be wise to use for supporting contentious claims.

Some editors, rather than directly commenting on whether or not The Daily Dot is generally reliable or not, opted to advocate for use of in-text attribution as an additional consideration for this source. Editors in support of requiring in-text attribution compare the quality of The Daily Dot to that of

biased coverage

in certain topic areas, such as politics. Some editors questioned the utility of this RfC, finding the standard four-option approach inadequate or favor a case-by-case approach to handling the publication's coverage.
While a minority of editors express views that the source is
biased in its reporting
or for contentious claims of fact.
While there is no consensus on the general reliability of The Daily Dot, the lack of consensus in this RfC
does not preclude future discussions
from attaining consensus. Future discussion on the extent to which The Daily Dot is reliable for particular topic areas (such as internet culture, or alternatively politics) may help to attain consensus going forward for the website's use in those areas, and future civil discussion is encouraged to help attain a community consensus regarding the extent to which The Daily Dot is reliable for its coverage of specific topics.
(non-admin closure)
— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

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

What best describes The Daily Dot's reliability?

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

X-Editor (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Sigh… none of the standard options fit… so I will say Option 5: Use with in-text attribution Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure this RfC is helpful. It looks like the discussion in the previous section was already reaching a consensus of something like 2 but the more difficult question is what additional considerations apply. Most people were arguing that it should be seen as a biased source and used with attribution where something is contentious. I think
WP:DAILYBEAST is probably sensible. BobFromBrockley (talk
) 13:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I just want to post here to point people to my analysis and conclusion in the section above (here). I think an "option 2 with required attribution" would be fitting, similar to User:Blueboar's option 5 idea above. It's quite unlikely that the Daily Dot would be the only source reporting on something, so other sources that don't require attribution should be preferred; and the Daily Dot shouldn't be used for notability evaluation since many editors have pointed out in the discussion above that the Dot frequently covers inconsequential topics or Daily-Mail-like gossip. DFlhb (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment I agree with others that our typical options don't work well here. In fact I think this is a good example of why the typical options list and the color coding in general aren't very helpful. The current RSP listing says DD is reliable for internet trends. It doesn't say it's green for comments about people or politics etc. Of the options we have I would say #2 because that is where I think most sources like this should fit. Are they likely to tell an outright lie? No. Are they likely to skew what they report in a way that could lead to a false impression or that leaves out signiticant context? Yes. Are they likely to amplify a claim based on their own bias rather than based on a good analysis of the evidence? Yes. So all of these things point to a clear "use with care" type warning. However, the other issue is how much weight, if any, should be given to claims that we only find in DD? I would say just about none. I mean I'm fine with using them as a source for an otherwise mundane detail, "Ford released the new Palomino on March 5th". Should the source be used for a controversial claim ("Ford is hiding a safety defect in the Palomino"), heck no. Would I consider a claim made by another source more valid because DD echos it? No, they are trolling the web for clickable content. Thus my biggest concern is why would we give them any weight rather than are they messing up the actual facts. Springee (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 3 for politics. I think it makes sense to split this out by topic. The Daily Dot seems fine when they write about so-called internet culture, which seems to mostly consist of reporting on a viral TikTok video or the like, with a few paragraphs of analysis, which they do quite often, with a special focus on customers and employees at fast food restaurants and food delivery services, for some reason. (All of these examples are from the last four days!) It seems harmless enough. But when they cover politics, their status as a clickbait-y aggregator really becomes a problem: they still focus much of their reporting on Twitter randos and so on, with very little actual reporting, and in their analysis they seem much more interested in taking cheap shots at conservatives than at accurately capturing events. And, as User:DFlhb pointed out in the section above, even when they get things right, any non-obvious facts would be covered in other sources. So it seems useless to include them as a source for political topics. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 in general, biased and
WP:RSOPINION for politics. I see no evidence above of serious failed fact checks or blatant propagandistic shenanigans like doctored images or mixing fringe POVs with factual reporting (please feel free to inform me if I missed something of this form), but it does appear to be biased and opinionated for politics, so it should have a disclaimer similar to Jacobin, Reason etc that it is an opinionated/biased sources and treated as such (attributed where usable when biased/opinion, not for weight). Andre🚐
19:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Reason is a publication with years of history and plenty of good work to it's credit. This is none of that. It's mostly a farm for click bait stories. It's crazy that we would consider this crap source more reliable than Fox News (which isn't meant to be a compliment to Fox). Springee (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm open to changing my view on it, but I haven't seen any evidence, unlike copious failed fact checks and misleading statements by Fox. Andre🚐 20:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably option 1.5/2? It seems like sometimes attribution is appropriate when there's an unclear separation of reporting/analysis and commentary, but I have not seen sufficient evidence that we should consider it unreliable. Presumably we're supposed to base this, at least in part, on the list of stories which exemplify DD as unreliable in the section above. But actually looking at them, it's less a list of problems and more a list of when the OP disagrees. That DD considers Joe Rogan's statement that healthy 21-year-olds who exercise regularly have no need for vaccination to be a "false claim about COVID" is not an example of this source being unreliable. As for the Vance quote about being a "nationalist who worries about America's low fertility", as the DD article says, that's typically a white nationalist perspective. Maybe he wants there to just be more Americans, and supports lowering barriers to immigration rather than wanting more of specific types of Americans, but we don't need to know his thoughts to say that the Daily Dot pointed out that it's typically a racist argument (or a dog whistle to those who support that racist argument, with the built-in deniability that dog whistles come with). OP seemed to simply miss the point of the Musk/hair/gender-affirming care story, but that's ultimately DD highlighting a perspective other people made rather than their own, anyway, and there's no "unreliability" in there. The evidence is simply unconvincing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this read Andre🚐 20:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 2: There is no question that its home page looks clickbaity, and my initial reaction was to dismiss the publication outright (though not for the reasons cited by the OP, as to which I agree with Rhododendrites). But it actually seems to be reasonably accurate in its substantive news, it has something of a reputation for breaking news, and it's used by others. So on further consideration, I think it can be used with attribution. Some examples of use by others:

"The woman [who alleges she was drugged and raped by Cliff Maloney Jr.] came forward last year shortly after the Daily Dot published an article recounting accusations that Maloney sexually harassed women connected to Young Americans for Liberty, a conservative political organization." Atlanta Journal-Constitution (5/8/2022).

"The caller also provided police with a username, which belonged to a website's administrator, which they claimed belonged to them, suggesting that the caller's alleged motives and identity may have been fabricated, according to the Daily Dot, which first obtained a copy of the police report [about a swatting incident involving Marjorie Taylor Greene]." Independent Online (U.K.) (8/25/2022).

"[Rep. Barry] Loudermilk gave an interview to a local Georgia radio station on the day of the riot [i.e., Jan. 6, 2021]. The Georgia Republican was still in an undisclosed secure location as he spoke. His comments would not become widely known until The Daily Dot uncovered them months later." Business Insider (6/16/2022).

"Unjected, a dating app and the "largest unvaccinated platform" online, apparently left its entire website's back end unsecured. Security researchers, working with Daily Dot reporters, reportedly accessed the site's administrator dashboard, which had been left entirely unsecured and in de-bug mode." National Law Review (8/4/2022) (also covered in other sources).

"The Daily Dot recently discovered that one of the companies the state authorizes to provide campaigns and political action committees (PACs) with campaign finance software is owned by an open and avowed White supremacist who still praises the Confederacy." Florida Politics (9/16/2022).

These are just some recent examples from Westlaw. John M Baker (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 1.5/2 per
WP:BIASED, reflected by the current RSP entry Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. Due to that The Daily Dot frequently covers controversial and possibly exaggerated content that possibly violates due weight, IMO attribution should be recommended, and better sources should be preferred when possible. VickKiang (talk)
01:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
> reporting on popular social media videos with limited analysis

Is a lack of analysis for that a problem, I wonder? Watching and documenting the Web is also necessarily their forte (it's some of ours too). It may seem irrelevant and silly to many, or even clickbait-y. But to give a contrasting example, I found the Daily Dot indispensable in helping to catalog the cultural evolution of Pepe the Frog. An Internet cultural history that nobody could argue didn't dip into some politics, by the way. Chillabit (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 1.
WP:RS. And coverage in other sources generally covers it the way we'd expect them to cover another RS, eg. [5][6] --Aquillion (talk
) 02:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Quite a few of these are paywalled, but this one, which you describe as standing out, lists Media Bias/Fact Check the exact same way it lists Daily Dot. Yet, MBFC is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. I don't think a pile of links to largely paywalled sources that (at least some of the time) refer to them in a way they refer to unreliable sources really establishes their reliability.

Also, the question of bias needing attribution for WP purposes is separate from the issue of factual accuracy; and the site's strong bias is quite obvious. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I think you need to read that source again. They aren't listing them, they're using lists from them (and three other places). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The point is that, in context, their conclusions depend on the accuracy of data that they got from the Daily Dot, which is the way I would expect an academic paper to use a
WP:RS. This alone is not always enough because we have to consider what others say about them, but since it is otherwise generally structured like a reputable news source, and since the only objections anyone seems to be raising about the Daily Dot are that they personally disagree with its conclusions, it seems sufficient in this case. --Aquillion (talk
) 19:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 1. I just looked at TDD. A story about an incident at a Walmart ends with "The Daily Dot reached out to ...." Another about a TV weatherman using scenes of an animal caught in Hurricane Ian rising waters states "The Daily Dot reached out to WINK News...." There's one about a former employee exposing JCPenney's secret loss prevention surveillance, with "The Daily Dot reached out to Han via TikTok comment and JCPenney via email." TDD does what journalism is expected and supposed to do.
As for opinions, and its coverage of politics and culture,
WP:BIASED states: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject... Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Pyxis Solitary (yak)
. L not Q. 03:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 1, there has been no evidence presented that The Daily Dot engages in misinformation or that they have purveyed factually innacurate information and refused to correct it, all publications that report on politics are biased to some extent and the only way to avoid this would be to delete all Wikipedia articles on politics. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 2/Option 5 from
WP:WEIGHT. As its editorial standards appear to have gone down somewhat recently, maybe it would be possible to establish a rough cut-off point, prior to which it could be used with less caveats. Siawase (talk
) 08:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 2 highly biased on numerous fronts, not a source that should be generally used on Wikipedia. Bill Williams 18:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 1. I don't see any evidence that suggests TDD is anything but a generally reliable source. In fact, the examples of TDD following (what should be) accepted journalism practices has left me more confident of their reliability than I had been previously. Woodroar (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 2/5 per Blueboar, Bobfrombrockley, and others above; mixes fact and opinion and hence the rules on opinion pieces apply. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Terrible RfC as per all the varying views offered above, which are valid answers to the question but not the options presented. The only one I would be wholeheartedly against is option 4. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment - this RfC is due in part to a (now-archived) list I created of what I saw as false or misleading wording in some Daily Dot articles; you can see the list, and some discussion about it, here. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 2? It depends - this RFC for generic labelling doesn’t seem applicable, it would depend on the specific item in question. The DailyDot collection of pieces range in areas and sourcing and value - many are by staff writers with good rep and giving a factual reporting, many are more question pieces or about non-fact topics. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 per Aquillion: they don't seem to have any sort of history of inaccuracy and there's sufficient
WP:USEBYOTHERS to make it hard to say they're not reliable. I could see noting them down as biased but TBH they're not any more biased than something like Vox, which is also green on RSP. Loki (talk
) 17:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 2 for political content, Option 1 for general content per Andrevan and Rhododendrites. Contentious or questionable political views (whether explicit or implied) are not enough to write a source off as unreliable, but it does warrant additional considerations in a source's use and preference for better sources when possible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

My personal view is: if text can be sourced only to the Daily Dot, then we should not include it. If it's in a more reliable source but the Daily Dot provides additional colour then it might be acceptable as a supporting source with inline attribution, but even then I'd be skeptical. It's trashy and clickbaity. We should never drop sourcing standards to the point that we can include sensationalist content just because people like it, after all. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems like Option 5 is the best; it's an ok source, but we should find better, but it's better than nothing. Oaktree b (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Options 2 or 5. I concur with Oaktree; it's not the best source to use but it's better than Infowars. Ideally, I would elect to Decide on a case by case basis. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 per Aquillion, particularly good on Internet Culture (even though I'd acknowledge there has been a noticeable trend towards clickbaity articles in recent years). (Disclosure: I have written for the Daily Dot.) --Andreas JN 466 17:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Option 3 for politics as per Korny O'Near. - LilySophie (talk) 19:47, 9 November 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.

The New York Observer

Rate the reliability of The New York Observer.

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
.

IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments (Observer)

Option 1 or 2 - It has a reasonably good reputation for fact checking and accuracy - with a center-right bias. Care must be taken to distinguish opinion and gossip from factual event reporting (as is true of most online journalism, the lines can be blurred)… and, of course, headlines are not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

1987-2006, Option 1; 2006-current Option 2. The
New York Observer newspaper changed hands and is considered, based on my reading, generally less accurate and respected after the purchase by Jared Kushner in 2006. Why is this under discussion? Is there some significant credibility issue we are resolving? If we are discussing reliability, I believe we should divide that into time frames, say before the Kushner purchase and after. I am no content expert, but I did live in NYC during the double naughts, and the general feeling among my rather knowledgeable and diverse crowd was the subscribers had been torpedoed by the purchase. Today it's a rag, IMHO. Suitable for the birdcage, except no print version. BusterD (talk
) 20:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Question. I ask again of the OP, why are we having this conversation? Normally we don't have these sorts of evaluative discussions on RS/N unless we have a specific issue with the source or we've seen a pattern of issues with the source. What sort of activity or usage was seen which provoked this inquiry? BusterD (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment These two CJR pieces too would suggest that greater care would be required in judging TNYO in more recent years. The first speaks about the variable quality (...readers are left with a highly variable product...) and diminished editorial oversight (The old Observer was edited, on a story-by-story basis, in a way that the new online Observer isn’t...), and the latter to bias (...use the paper to settle scores or reward cronies...). Abecedare (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Option 2 2006-present per BusterD. Andre🚐 21:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Pre-2006, Option #1; Post-2006, Option #2 Per the observations above.
Banks Irk (talk
) 17:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

No reason for RfC The only reason to have a RfC would be if we are asking if a specific sources is reliable for a specific claim (not the case here) or if the reliability of a source is commonly discussed when editors try to use it. Neither of those appear to be the case here so this RfC seems out of the blue and likely will not produce a good result. Either it will have limited responses or only a few editors who might have a strong opinion on the subject will weigh in. We really need to have a rule that we don't have general RfC's unless editors can show multiple examples of debates about a source. If this is being asked with respect to a single topic then just ask about the article/use in question. Springee (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment:
WP:RSNP. User:Springee and I often find ourselves on opposite sides of a reasonable argument, but I wholeheartedly agree with their take on this discussion on a public board. The OP is crying wolf. IMHO, this discussion should be immediately closed and archived as a defective process. If IdiosyncraticLawyer wishes to present evidence this discussion should even occur, they need to make any kind of a case, and quickly. BusterD (talk
) 23:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sorry, I'm new to this discussion process, and I came into this unaware of the controversy requirement of noticeboard source discussions. Given the points made, I agree to closing this discussion. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Turkey authoritarian dictatorship

Any input would be great Talk:Turkey#Turkey authoritarian dictatorship. Moxy- 15:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Open Logic Project

https://openlogicproject.org/ This website contains information about mathematics and logic and is apparently maintained by experts in those fields. I would like to see if there is a consensus on its reliability. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This is an open-source, wiki-type site hosted on a blogging platform and so would not be RS. JoelleJay (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, looking closer it seems that contributions from the community are really more suggestions that can be submitted rather than directly implemented, and the published content is actually moderated by the editing team. So this could be RS. JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Is self-published blog source reliable on Göbekli Tepe

This self-published blog source is listed as Further reading on Göbekli Tepe. However, it does not appear to meet the recognized subject-matter expert exception. While the author has a Google Scholar entry, he appears to have only written 3 articles with a total of 2 citation between them. The blog is self-published [7] and includes a disclaimer: "The views and opinions expressed on this blog in no way represent the universities or employers to which I’m affiliated. They are my own opinions and views and I alone am responsible for them. –Carl T. Feagans"

Feagans, Carl (February 8, 2020). "Buzzwords, Bogeymen, and Banalities of Pseudoarchaeology: Göbekli Tepe". Archaeology Review. Blog post on Göbekli Tepe as a "pseudoarchaeological trope"

Opinions? Skyerise (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

"he appears to have only written 3 articles with a total of 2 citation between them." Does not sound like an expert to me. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Göbekli_Tepe. Pinging Joe Roe Geogene (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
There is no doubt that it is not fringe, so discussion there doesn't address this issue. The issue is - it reliable enough for an SME exception to
WP:SPS. Skyerise (talk
) 17:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to show good faith here. This seems to be part of an attempt to remove criticism. Yep, that's not a comment on the blog's reliability, but he is in my experience an expert. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Nope, I left the critical Skeptoid article, which passes
WP:RS. That doesn't appear to be the case for Feagans. Please feel welcome to provide evidence that published sources consider Feagans an SME. Skyerise (talk
) 18:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: @Richard Keatinge: has removed the Skeptoid article, which I believe is RS and should be included. Skyerise (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that Skyerise chose to omit that we've already had a lengthy discussion about this source at
talk
) 21:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Anything self-published isn't acceptable, no matter what the subject is. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
That's not true. Geogene (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@
WP:ASPERSIONS. My only agenda here is to assure that the sources and further reading that support criticism in these articles are strong sources, because that will make the pseudoscience judgments in these articles more easily defensible. Certainly some of the followers of Hancock know how to bat at low-hanging fruit. It's also a matter of respect: we owe it to our subjects that if we must brand them, we at least don't do it by citing some dude's blog, but rather we should cite a person with a more extensive publication history. To do otherwise seems extremely disrepectful, even if we disagree with the subject's conclusions. We open ourselves to ridicule by using such weak sources when there are plenty of stronger sources available. The source is weak and not easily justifiable as an SME exception. Skyerise (talk
) 01:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of World History

courtesy link: Encyclopedia of World History

I don't have an independent opinion about this, but in this edit, Joshua Jonathan wrote, "Joshua J. Mark and his Encyclopedia of World History are perennial untrustworthy" and I'd like to invite them to elaborate on that here, if they are willing. Mathglot (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There's not much ro elaborate, except that I've encountered the WEH a few times, and on all those occasions Mark's writings contained painfull errors. Such as writing that the Buddha was a Hindu prince, and calling Vedic religion "Hinduism."

From Hinduism:
"Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, originating in Central Asia and the Indus Valley". The Australian aboriginals have a religion which is arguably thousands of years older; and IVC-related religious beliefs may have survived in some form in Hinduism, but that does not mean that "Hinduism" originated in the IVC.

"... the 3rd millennium BCE when a nomadic coalition of tribes who referred to themselves as Aryan came to the region from Central Asia. Some of these people, now referred to as Indo-Iranians, settled in the region of modern-day Iran (some of whom came to be known in the West as Persians) while others, now known as Indo-Aryans, made their home in the Indus Valley." - the Indo-Aryans arrived in the eary second millennium BCE, and they did not settle in the Indus Valley, but in the Punjab. Incredible stupidity...

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Recently I saw the World History Encyclopedia (worldhistory.org, WHE) used[8][9] (by a now-blocked sock) for claims that there are 2.8 billion Christians, sourced to a WHE article about the early history of Christianity[10]. That article opened with the figure in "it's big, really big" style without providing any sources and was not about current Christianity or even the last 1500 years of Christianity; it was a better fit for the WHE's old name, Ancient History Encyclopedia. The author's credentials looked good for ancient history but not for current demographics. My impression was that the WHE article might help a Wikipedia editor understand the subject better, but if any details from it were wanted for a Wikipedia article, they could and should be supported by a more specific
WP:RS. NebY (talk
) 15:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I would be cautious about using this even as a source for ancient history. It's not difficult to find questionable, dated, or outright false claims even there. Take their article Sappho of Lesbos, for instance. The third paragraph claims that "there is evidence that Pope Gregory VII ordered her works burned c. 1073 CE", which is only true if we count "someone wrote it down once 500 years after the fact" as evidence (and a different someone, around the same time, said it was Gregory of Nazianzus); presenting this claim in this way is misleading at best. A little later we have "She is said to have operated a school for girls on Lesbos, but this seems to be a later invention of the 19th century CE which confused her with her protégée Damophila who ran a girl's school in Pamphylia" – we get off to a promising start but the stuff about Damophila is nonsense. Then "is said to have been exiled twice to Sicily because of her political views" – I'm not sure where the "twice" comes from here, and the "because of her political views" is somewhat confused: the ancient sources don't say why she was exiled; modern speculation is that it might be because her family were on the wrong side of the political turmoil in Lesbos during her lifetime – Sappho's personal views don't really come into it. There's plenty more where that came from.

The good news is that they seem to cite their sources, so they might be a useful source of reading material when planning an article. The bad news is that their source selection is... erratic. To continue with the Sappho example: she is one of the most-written-about women in the entire ancient world, and yet they don't cite a single monograph on Sappho in their bibliography – most of their sources are general works, which goes some way to explain why their article is stuck in the 19th century on so many points. On the other hand, their article on Aspasia does cite Madeleine Henry's Prisoner of History, which is the key secondary source (though it would have been nice for them to also reference Nicole Loraux's "Aspasie, l'étrangère, l'intellectuelle"). Even there the article has plenty of dated views, however; they accept uncritically the idea that Aspasia really was tried for impiety, despite the modern consensus that this almost certainly didn't happen, even though Henry discusses this at some length. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: moved here from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

I've looked at a few articles on subjects I know about, mostly art history. They are actually rather like Wikipedia, clearly not written by specialists, and perhaps generally rather less reliable than ours. Their coverage is much poorer (many fewer articles on a given area), & the style tends to waffle on rather (rather like some of our other language editions...). Some of the articles covered ancient art, & I'd echo Caeciliusinhorto-public above. Sometimes worth reading, but not really reliable. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

PC Gamer

Does anyone know if PC Gamer is a considered reliable source? Wolfquack (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It's listed as reliable at
WP:VGRS. Hemiauchenia (talk
) 18:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia Thanks for the reply! Wolfquack (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's one of the oldest PC gaming news sources that's still around. As reliable as anything can be in that space. I'd have no issues with using them for references. Canterbury Tail talk 16:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

musicandhistory.com

Another source used in a not small number of articles. The page is dead now, and of dubious reliability (the creator seems anonymous, although calls themselves plural "we". See archived about). Their articles have no footnotes/sources, they have one page for "all sources used" (archived) which contains both reliable works as well as unreliable (personal websites hosted on angelfire, etc.). Their contact us is (was...) totally anonymous archived). I suggest depraciating due to no evidence of editorial controls and overall reliability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This is probably a case where tagging with "better source needed" at the current time is most prudent. They certainly are not the best source, but they also don't fabricate their information, so it's probably not necessary to cleanse Wikipedia entirely of it at this time. Yes, the source should be gradually replaced, and if that's a project the OP wants to take on personally, that would be worthwhile, but among sources, it's not the highest priority, and prudence is probably best here. --Jayron 32 14:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Is SlashGear considered a reliable source?

I want know if
video games reliable sources talk page but I couldn’t find anything. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs
14:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that it is used in List of Chromebooks, Reddit, ChatON, Mercedes-Benz EQS, Acer Predator, Verizon (mobile network), and many others. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Economic Policy Institute is a reliable source for charts

Economic Policy Institute. EPI is not listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
See this version of Minimum wage in the United States.
Scroll down to the "Historical trend" section. There are 2 graphs using the same 2 sources to create the graphs: the easily found record of US federal minimum wage increases. And Consumer price index values. The more recent graph from EPI is more understandable because it lists the actual peak value of $12.12 in 1968.
But one editor keeps removing the more recent EPI graph because he says Economic Policy Institute, the source of the graph, is an unreliable source. See more EPI graph info on the Commons:

File:Timeline of the real value of the US federal minimum wage (adjusted for inflation).png

There is no problem with Wikipedia:Verifiability because the chart sources and data are listed in the EPI article: The value of the federal minimum wage is at its lowest point in 66 years. By David Cooper, Sebastian Martinez Hickey, and Ben Zipperer. Posted July 14, 2022. And: Chart by itself. "All values in June 2022 dollars, adjusted using the CPI-U in 2022 chained to the CPI-U-RS (1978–2021) and CPI-U-X1 (1967–1977) and CPI-U (1966 and before)." The data tab below the chart lists all the data used to create the graph.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a more reliable source for data and charts they put out. EPI is run by economists. "Since 2021, the EPI has been led by economist
Department of Labor
."
You may disagree with some of the interpretations, but the data is right there. So it fits with
WP:NPOV
. In the form of: "EPI uses this chart to claim such-and-such based on this data from these sources." --Timeshifter (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Perennial sources is for sources that have been brought up several times on the RSN, but a search for "Economic Policy Institute" only turns up this discussion. As the EPI is a political think tank and activist organization, I would consider it to be reliable only for its own opinion, similar to the Cato Institute. It should not be used to verify statements of fact, and if it's used at all, it should be clear that it's only the opinion of the EPI. If you're trying to verify a fact or statistic, I suggest finding a more authoritative source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
The facts are not in question. The chart is not an opinion. EPI is not being "used to verify statements of fact".

EPI just created a graph from facts. Lots of charts and graphs are found on the Commons from all kinds of organizations.

But they can't stay in articles if their data sources are not clear. Whether the organization is left or right leaning has not been important in my experience.

It's the data sources that matter, not the organization.

EPI has not been shown to lie about its sources for charts, etc.. So it is a reliable source in that sense.

Same thing is true for the many charts, graphs, and maps created by editors. If one reads their user pages one clearly sees that most editors lean left or right or whatever. It's their sources that matter as to whether the chart or graph gets put in an article.

The graph is actually in the public domain. See: commons:Template:PD-chart. I uploaded this public domain graph to the Commons. I am left leaning on most issues, independent on others.

So is the graph disqualified because I am left leaning? Of course not. Its data sources are what matters.

So Economic Policy Institute is a reliable source for charts. It lists its data sources. What more do we want from them? Or me? Or any organization or editor that creates charts and maps? --Timeshifter (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Here are the graphs from the article version:

Timeline of the real value of the US federal minimum wage (adjusted for inflation). Peak value of $12.12 in 1968.^[1]

Nominal dollars. And inflation-adjusted dollars.^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ The value of the federal minimum wage is at its lowest point in 66 years. By David Cooper, Sebastian Martinez Hickey, and Ben Zipperer. July 14, 2022. By Economic Policy Institute.

U.S. Department of Labor, Federal Minimum Hourly Wage for Nonfarm Workers for the United States. Inflation adjusted (by FRED) via the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items in U.S. City Average (CPIAUCSL)
. Graph retrieved February 8, 2020.

^ "History of Federal Minimum Wage Rates Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938–2009". US Department of Labor. United States Department of Labor. Retrieved 2020-02-09.

^ "Changes in Basic Minimum Wages in Non-Farm Employment Under State Law: Selected Years 1968 to 2021". U.S. Department of Labor. January 2022. Retrieved September 27, 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

--Timeshifter (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The first graph has no y-axis units, which is a huge red flag when it comes to graphs. It appears that it is not
WP:TOSCALE, which is incredibly misleading. This is exactly why we don't use information (even graphs) from activist sources. On the other hand, I see no immediate issues with the second one and think it could be quite useful. Thebiguglyalien (talk
) 14:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
The first chart isn't to scale and has no y-axis, as Thebiguglyalien notes. As such, I don't see an encyclopedic use of the chart.

The second chart appears to be based off of FRED, which is to say that the data would appear to be delivered via the St. Louis Fed (even if BLS or another agency collected the data). It's unclear to me which dataset is being used as the inflation adjustment; nominal non-farm minimum wage is available through 2022 and is obviously the minimum wage used in the graph, . It's unclear to me what sort of adjustment is being used for the federal minimum hourly wage (my best guess is Urban CPI). The graph verifies when I try to re-create it in FRED myself, so it checks out in this case.

In general, I think it's probably better to user FRED to actually make the chart; it would allow us to use more recent data than 2020 and it's fine under
WP:CALC
to do a basic inflation adjustment provided that it meaningfully relates to the sources discussing the minimum wage and real value of it.

In short, while the first chart is better avoided, the second chart is legit (though it's probably better to just get the chart straight from FRED and include data through 2022). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The EPI graph is to scale. It starts at the bottom in 1938. The graphs look slightly different because they have different starting years, and because different CPIs are used.
Having a Y axis would be nice but it was not necessary to the point EPI was trying to make in their article. A new graph could be created from their data (data tab below the graph). Y axis could be added to that new graph. I may try to find someone to do that.
The 2 graphs are using different CPIs. The EPI graph is using multiple CPIs. See the EPI file description for the list of CPIs used. The FRED graph only uses one CPI. The FRED graph creation pages may offer more CPI options but I haven't had time to figure it out.
If you want your brain to hurt you can see all the different CPIs, etc. that can be used with the minimum wage:

The Federal Minimum Wage: Indexation. Congressional Research Service.

The bottom line as I have said throughout is what data is being used. I see no deception from EPI. Economic Policy Institute is a reliable source for charts, especially since they provide their data.
I agree though that the 2 graphs should not be used together due to the confusion to readers who see slightly different graphs for all the reasons mentioned.
Did some Google Image searches. Here is a good graph from Fortune (magazine) but I don't know what CPIs, etc. are being used because the article is hidden behind a paywall.

https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/minimum_wage_030121-01.png

https://fortune.com/2021/03/18/federal-minimum-wage-15-how-much-each-state-history-of-compared-to-other-countries-by-industry

--Timeshifter (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that at
WP:IS. And they are practically never valid for statements of fact about causes they advocate for or against; it doesn't matter what political lean they have, this is true for conservative as well as liberal think-tanks; they will only present data that supports their position, so they will tell only half of the story. ---Avatar317 ^(talk)
21:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Navypedia.org

Used in few dozen articles. Seems like a fan project, no evidence or reliability, very little self-description, no evidence of editorial controls. Their pages (example of soruce used cite no sources). The project seems Russia-based and supported by donation. I see no evidence what makes this reliable and suggest depraciating as a source. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Used in significantly more articles than that
navypedia.org: 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 Lyndaship (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Deprecate. I've been eliminating it even as a external reference on the articles that I work on it doesn't meet our requirements for a RS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Not an RS - Self published site that doesn't appear to be associated with a published Subject Matter Expert. It may be appropriate to use as an external source but not as a source.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Deprecate per Sturm and Nigel; it's a SPS, plain and simple. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Not an RS - Not seeing anything that would support reliability. Appears to be used on 708 articles at the moment: [13]. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Just as a brief note, the articles referencing this include 2 GAs (Russian ironclad Petr Veliky and Russian battleship Imperator Nikolai I (1889)), with a further two having it as an EL ([14]), and two FAs have ELs as well ([15]) Ljleppan (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
@Ljleppan Pinging GA author Sturmvogel 66 so they can replace these sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, it hasn't been a concerned effort on my part, only when I find them. But I appreciate the notification.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
All done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Not reliable Cool website, but just an ethusiasts blog. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Not reliable, but not eligible for deprecation. Please leave that for sources that spread deliberate misinformation or fabricate material. This is a fan site, yes, and probably should be replaced as a source with other, more reliable sources, but save the deprecation for misinformation rather than amatuer-but-trying type sources. --Jayron 32 14:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOBLOGS and it has little to nothing to offer that cannot be included in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk
) 15:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but "don't use it" is not the same as "deprecation". That's a special kind of double secret probation we reserve for sources that are known to fabricate information, or similar levels of deliberate intent to deceive. Merely being less that perfectly reliable is not really a reason to deprecate. There's nuance. --Jayron 32 12:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Danny Hilman Natawidjaja

Hello all, Skyerise recently brought this article over from the Indonesian Wikipedia, and to my eyes, the sourcing seems a bit thin for our guidelines. That said, I am always happy to be wrong, and more eyes and opinions would be appreciated. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this mention of a phrase in a reliable publishment a reliable source to add that phrase as a nickname?

Allen, Scott (6 August 2022), "Kostic so desperate not to join West Ham hed rather take a smaller wage packet at Juventus", PlanetSport, retrieved 22 October 2022
@Egghead06 believes that the above source is reliable enough to add the "Cockney Boys" nickname to West Ham United F.C.'s infobox and "Nicknames" section. There has been discussion going on at Talk:West Ham United F.C. § Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

pretendradio.org

Some guy has been making a lot of edits on the Frank Abagnale page with this as a source. For what it's worth, they seem like good edits, but I'm just checking to make sure this is an acceptable source by Wikipedia's standards. The writer seems to have a lot of loathing for Abagnale, which does not fill me with confidence regarding the reliability of the claims insofar as their informational content is concerned, even if we assume that they all check out factually. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

As it is a podcast, it fails
wp:SPS. Slatersteven (talk
) 12:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I've removed 4 citations. The article content is otherwise unchanged, including the formerly cited claims - up to you guys what's done with them. I am pretty much a Wikipedia newbie and I'm sure there's some protocol for this sort of thing. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
removed several more (the remaining pretendradios.) will check for any more SPSes when i have time 216.164.249.213 (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

New fake story by The Wire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#The_Wire_(India)
I know this was few days ago and nothing came out. I am starting this again as a new case of fake news was posted. I want to know, will this change the decision taken by others in past request?
First Wire writes on twitter - "The ripple effects of the Meta layoffs could be ghastly, especially for the many workers who’ve depended on employment with Meta for their US visas. @nixxin writes for @FutureTenseNow" https://twitter.com/thewire_in/status/1593581042924863490

@nixxin is twiter name of Nikhil Pahwa a verified account https://twitter.com/nixxin
He tweets- "What the hell. I never wrote this. Dear @thewire_in Can you please do your due diligence before you publicly attribute something to someone? Please remove this tweet and please remove any attribution to my twitter handle or me."
https://twitter.com/nixxin/status/1593584990306336775
Last time I posted about fake stories of Wire about Tek Fog and meta(check links I gave in past discussion) and except one Wikipedia editor most were opposing my request. So, I added this new case of fake report made by Wire. 2402:3A80:1A42:4DD9:9DB4:D3B6:8AF6:1185 (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Fake implies they intentionally or willfully knew they were writing false information. Do you have evidence this wasn't an honest mistake? Have they published a correction? Things like that. No news source gets things correct 100% of the time, so playing "gotcha" with one mistake is not going to make any difference here. --Jayron 32 14:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

They've already fixed it and added a correction notice to both twitter and the article, which is exactly what we would expect an RS to do.
MrOllie (talk
) 14:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment - We can certainly say that the Wire’s coverage of this specific story was unreliable. To say they are generally unreliable, we would need to see a pattern of flawed reporting/editorial oversight on a multitude of topics. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Even moreso, we would need to see an analysis by another reliable source, preferably one that has a reputation for analyzing media reliability, that it does so. What other reliable sources report on The Wire would help us to understand what its general standing is in the world with regards to its reliability. That's even better than someone here trying to play amateur detective, and cherrypicking specific articles to make their case one way or another. --Jayron 32 15:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

IP, are you the same IP thats been trying to get The Wire downgraded for more than a month or a new IP? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am the same person who did previous request on their fake Tek fog and meta story. I don't know how many times reliable sources are allowed to do repeat fake news again and again and then delete fake stories. Do you know that Wire has filed police FIR against their journalist. 42.105.103.199 (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, you show us no evidence that this publication published "fake news" in this specific instance. There really is no substance to your gripe. One of your links doesn't work, while the other makes it seem a case of mistaken identity (the Wire having tagged a namesake, stuff happens all the time). Please stop trying to use this place to discredit and denigrate a reliable source of information because of their political takes. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

They deleted the link after @nixxin complained about it. The way you said doesn't work, as if it didn't work when I posted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3a80:1a46:1e81:88f9:ad49:adc3:8a35 (talk • contribs)

Not done This is an anonymous crusade to brand a news source which has a solid record and reputation as "fake news" just because (like every publication) they occasionally get something wrong. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether you do or not do, Orangemike.
Remove 14 articles on Bharat Biotech: Court to The Wire- https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/remove-14-articles-on-bharat-biotech-court-to-the-wire-101645641528907.html
Take down stories on Bharat Biotech, court tells The Wire- https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/telangana/take-down-stories-on-bharat-biotech-court-tells-the-wire/article65078517.ece
I think some are forgetting this so.
A prominent Indian independent news site destroys its own credibility - https://www.economist.com/asia/2022/10/27/a-prominent-indian-independent-news-site-destroys-its-own-credibility
What The Wire Reports Got Wrong - https://about.fb.com/news/2022/10/what-the-wire-reports-got-wrong/
Sharechat asks The Wire to take down story on the Tek Fog app- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/sharechat-asks-the-wire-to-take-down-story-on-the-tek-fog-app/articleshow/94963861.cms
Indian outlet on defensive after its explosive claims of Meta political censorship- https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/18/india-facebook-meta-the-wire/
Bloomberg Retracts Column on Tek Fog - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/bloomberg-retracts-column-on-tek-fog/2022/10/31/a81bf690-5980-11ed-bc40-b5a130f95ee7_story.html

Progarchy: Reliable source?

Progarchy is a website dedicated to progressive rock. Its "About" page[16] includes "Our goal is to support beautiful music, specifically progressive rock in all its varied forms, through album reviews, interviews, concert reviews, and articles. We are all volunteers." It lists three "Editors", a number of "Progarchists" (contributors), and appears to be well-organized. Currently, it's used as a source in 19 WP articles.[17]
The similarly named
WT:ALBUMS#Progarchy
, but was unresolved. Should Progarchy be considered a reliable source for WP purposes? Or perhaps just selected contributors?
—Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Željko Heimer (https://zeljko-heimer-fame.from.hr/home.html)

I need an opinion can Željko Heimer who leads, maintains and edits this website be considered a reliable source?
As far as I understand, Heimer is a notable vexillologist (there is an article on him at the Serbo-Croatian [18] and Serbian [19] Wikipedia, also there is an article on him at the Jewish Biographical Lexicon, published by Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography and edited by Ivo Goldstein).
I believe he is an established expert in vexillology and can be used as a reliable source. Governor Sheng (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to put RfC tags on these discussions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

As self-published vexillology hobbyist, Željko Heimer can't be used in any case other than issues concerning vexillology, but even that only when other editors have no objection(s) because Heimer is electro-engineer whose hobby is vexillology, and who maintains, or is maintained, self-published vexillology blog. He (or his blog) can't be used in issues involving, for instance, constitutionality, constitutional court cases, law and whatever legal matters are discussed in article(s). Bottom line, he could, maybe, be used only on issues involving appearance of flags and emblems (coa), or something innocuous like historical flag(s) design, and other matters of vexillology. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This is a rather limited, not helpful insight, because Heimer has published scholarly works on the subject of vexillology [20]. But thanks anyway. Governor Sheng (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Know Your Meme

WP:KNOWYOURMEME as being generally unreliable. However, I could not see any discussion on staff written articles at the site. At Boyinaband, @Strugglehouse: cited this article written by Phillip Hamilton, an associate editor at Know Your Meme. Hamilton is listed on the staff page
.
I was wondering if this article, along with others written by staff at KYM (not user-generated or community written), would be suitable for inclusion within a BLP article. Mbdfar (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Even if it was written by staff, I do not see KYM being a high enough quality source to include unconfirmed grooming allegations in a BLP. I suspect that if this was taken to BLPN the response would be the same as mine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

That particular article isn't
WP:RS, and the author doesn't seem to have any history of publication in more securely reliable venues that I can find (though he has an unfortunately ungoogleable name, so I may have missed something). I can't see any reason why we should consider KYM staff-authored articles reliable in general; as Hemiauchenia says we certainly shouldn't be using them to support such serious allegations againt living people. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk
) 09:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

If someone wanted to include a link to a meme explanation page due to the memes relation to the subject, then maybe it's not really that important. For allegations of grooming? Hell no, staff writer or not. It needs to be a much more reliable source before such allegations are put in a BLP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
100% agreed, KYM should never be used for contentious BLP, period. Masem (t) 01:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It obviously can't be used for serious allegations about child grooming and sexual abuse; that needs to be handled with a level of care that Know Your Meme wouldn't provide. Looking through that staff writer's other "editorships", here's a less obvious example: could we for example use the staff-written entry for "Mask Off Challenge" as a source for a statement added to Mask Off#Legacy about how the song was popular on TikTok and used in TikTok "challenges"? Endwise (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I will concur with the above
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If KYM is cited in an article about some goofy internet meme, meh? Okay? It's probably not the worst thing. Would I ever use such a site as a source for contentious material in a BLP. Hell no. Absofuckinglutely not. The sort of allegations should only be reported if sourced to multiple, highly-respected and reliable sources. KYM is not the BBC. It's not the AP. No way. --Jayron 32
14:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, much of KYM's content is user-generated and very bad; even stuff from staff writers tends to be quite slipshod. They are an entertainment website that does not do serious scholarship. Their content is quite unreliable on specific details. While the images are real, they will often, for example, claim that a meme was "originated" several years late and from a different website. For example, a 4chan meme from 2006 will be cited by KYM as a Reddit meme from 2009, presumably because they used a single Google query for "research". I would use it for memes only with great caution, when details can be corroborated from primary sources/evidence elsewhere (Internet Archive, Encyclopædia Dramatica, etc). For... contentious claims in BLPs... about extremely serious ethical allegations... absolutely not reliable. jp×g 17:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Eagle Scouts § Citations that are almost impossible to verify

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Eagle Scouts § Citations that are almost impossible to verify. How to improve a citation that does not provide sufficient verifiability. Sundayclose (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I do understand your frustration with how the source in question is set up, but (with effort) you can verify. Remember that our standard is not easy verification, but simply that verification is possible. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

LBC News

The British radio station LBC News publishes online news articles at https://lbc.co.uk/news . It was previously discussed at RSN here. Is this article a reliable source?

Davidson, Gina (17 June 2022). "NHS apologises for claiming eunuch is a gender identity". LBC. Retrieved 3 November 2022.

There is a related RfC at Talk:Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People#RfC: Eunuchs. Cheers, gnu 57 13:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think reliability is the concern here. Nobody is claiming the article is factually incorrect (though it may have issues). Several editors are trying to insert a "controversy" into an article that is only mentioned by press with an openly trans hostile editorial stance, or in the case of the LBC piece above, a journalist with a trans hostile agenda. The context for the LBC piece is the Gender Recognition Act changes in Scotland (which the journalist opposes) and can be viewed from that point of view as randomly digging up dirt. Most sources have ignored this story.
WP:PROPORTION is what matters here, and the "body of reliable sources" includes those who choose to regard this "controversy" as a nothingburger. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources advises us "This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." So we need to be concsious of both bias and reliability in our sources when working out whether to include something. -- Colin°^Talk
16:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I brought LBC to RSN because Newimpartial said Since when would LBC be considered a "reliable source"? and No, LBC isn't "a mainstream news organisation". I have no interest in relitigating the rest of the WPATH RfC here. gnu 57 13:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's a
abolishing police or instituting communism was anti-black or anti-labor. Then, that preconceived political viewpoint is used as a yardstick to reject any sources deemed insufficiently deferential to the activists' demands as too biased to be reliable and summarily UNDUE. That's where we're at with some of the rhetoric on trans issues. In reality, lots of trans people are not too keen to have their situations conflated with stuff like becoming a eunuch for whatever reason. Crossroads ^-talk-
17:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. This noticeboard is about the reliability of sources. No reason has been given for judging that LBC is unreliable.
WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. PinkNews is grossly biased, yet it is accepted as a reliable source. Sweet6970 (talk
) 17:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
See
WP:HID and all that. If we claimed that a source was "Openly hostile against black people" and your response was to cite a source that says "Maybe black people should be treated with due decency and respect and should be afforded the same human rights as others" as "grossly biased", you're both right and wrong. I want my sources grossly biased in favor of decency and basic human rights. You're supposed to want that kind of editorial stance. Sure, "supports bigotry" and "opposes bigotry" are opposing viewpoints, but I wouldn't be fighting hard against sources that are grossly biased against bigots. It's not a good look. --Jayron 32
19:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I can’t work out what you’re talking about, since your post does not seem to have any logical connection with my post. And if your intent is to accuse me of being a racist, please post this on my Talk page – where it will be duly ignored. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Jayron is making a parallel between sources that are openly hostile against trans people (like the Telegraph), against those that were historically openly hostile against black people. In both cases, the sources that are hostile against a minority are those biased against "decency and basic human rights", and that as an editorial stance we should favour sources that are biased towards "decency and basic human rights". Another equally relevant comparison would be comparing the UK media's current anti-trans stance, versus the UK media's anti-homosexual stance in the 1970s-1990s. According to
Civil Rights Movement
of the 1950s-60s, and homosexuals during the 1970s-1990s. With both the anti-black and anti-gay panics in particular, many of the headlines like "X is coming for your children in public bathrooms" are directly interchangeable across all three eras.

The logical connection is that sources, and by extension editors who defend those sources, are on the wrong side of history, and that it is "not a good look" to oppose a minority. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
If Jayron wants to explain what they meant, and how this relates to my comment, they could do this themselves. There is no point in engaging on this page in any discussion which includes reference to editors being ‘on the wrong side of history’, since this is meaningless. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
It's really very simple. If one source takes a stance that bigotry against trans people is a good thing, and a different source takes a stance that bigotry against trans people is a bad thing, while it is true that they have opposite biases, that doesn't mean we give equal weight merely because they hold opposing positions. The position that is opposed to bigotry, or in your words, "grossly biased" against bigotry, is the one we're supposed to favor. The
neutral position is not "pro-bigotry" and "anti-bigotry" are equivalent, so we give them equal weight. The neutral position is bigotry is bad, and we don't pretend that pro-bigotry perspectives are worth giving weight to. Also, I haven't said one word about you or what you believe or are. I've only ever mentioned the sources. You believe what you want to believe, I don't give a shit about you. --Jayron 32
11:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The point that is important is that this noticeboard won't settle your question for inclusion.
WP:VNOT. -- Colin°^Talk
19:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Umm… I can’t get that point from Jayron’s comment. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I'll make it simpler. You are wrong. And persisting to argue here about whether LBC is a reliable source is wasting everyone's time, because it doesn't help your case. And selecting hateful sources and demanding Wikipedia repeats their hate, is not earning you any brownie points. -- Colin°^Talk 21:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Colin, this is supposed to be a discussion about whether LBC is a reliable source. It seems that you disagree with me about that. But I don’t know whether that is what you mean when you say that I am wrong. Nor do I know what you mean when you say selecting hateful sources and demanding Wikipedia repeats their hate; this does not relate to anything I have said here. Please stick to the point on this page.

If you want to engage in personal insults, then the appropriate place to do so is on my Talk page: but I’m not much interested in being insulted. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

No - the LBC site is an adjunct of a right-wing talk radio establishment; I don't believe that its blogroll has a reputation for editorial oversight or fact-checking. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

To describe "LBC" as "right-wing talk radio" is absolutely detached from reality. It certainly has some right-wing presenters, but it also has leftist Lewis Goodall, and prominent centrists like James O'Brien and Andrew Marr. It's a bit right-wing for my taste, but it is well to the left of the Telegraph or the Washington Post. In any case, political positions do not determine reliability. Boynamedsue (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be fairer to say LBC has a history of hiring contributors with strong views who are not afraid to share them, vs somewhere like the BBC which is much stricter (if imperfect) at aiming for impartiality. I don't know whether it has a track record on trans issues, but the particular journalist (who is a new hire on Scottish politics) does, and presumably LBC likes the fact that they say controversial / populist things. While I think papers like the Telegraph are so extremely anti-trans that it is clear some of their stories are just plain made up and misrepresent the facts, the main problem with such sources is that selecting them selects for bias. It is tricky, when more neutral sources write nothing. Wikipedia has always had a problem in this area.
WP:PROPORTION
says "For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news." Which is exactly what that Scottish debacle was: unimportant to the article topic. Most of those newspapers were dealing with the self ID debate in Scotland and the Scottish National Gender Identity Clinical Network (which doesn't even have an article). So it is arguable those sources were not writing about the article topic, but about another topic and happened to bring in this side issue because it helped their case.

So I do think it is important for both sides to abandon trying to win some vote over whether LBC is generally reliable. If they dropped the journalist who wrote the above article, and hired Ugla Stefanía Kristjönudóttir Jónsdóttir, a trans journalist, from the Metro tabloid then maybe your view of LBC as a source would change. LBC would need to be Daily Mail level unreliable for you to get a no response. What you have in the above debate is not editors examining the literature on WPATH guidelines and writing a balanced article, but editors doing a google search and finding random stuff on the internet. The debate is not WP:V but about neutrality and weight. -- Colin°^Talk 08:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible that you have confused LBC with GB News? gnu 57 13:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
There was a period where Nigel Farage had a talk show on the station, which led to a feeling it was going down the right-wing shock jock route. But he's was sacked in 2020 for comparing Black Lives Matter to the Taliban. Rise of the British shock jock gives a good analysis and points towards Talkradio being the new shock jock home. -- Colin°^Talk 13:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It should also be noted that LBC is primarily a talk radio station, which has recently become national and was previously London only. As a news website it is a minnow with a miniscule readership compared to BBC or Guardian. So the fact this story was found there reflects Google's ability to find keywords buried deep inside a story about something else on a minor news site. -- Colin°^Talk 13:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Since you say it is a minor news site and was offering a platform to ideologues as recently as 2020, it sound that it is not generally reliable, unless there is evidence that it is. Andre🚐 09:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I doubt there's a rule that says that news sites can't offer a platform to ideologues in editorial sections without being considered unreliable. We may imagine that there's some correlation there, but it seems to me that it would be wrong to label the non-editorial section of a news site unreliable because of things found on the editorial section. Benevolent Prawn (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I don't see any evidence presented for its unreliability, and it is a prominent broadcaster. News articles like the one above should be fine to use.Boynamedsue (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Colin makes the salient point here; reliability of the source is not at hand. The relevant position is
consensus that the story is relevant, in the sense that it's worth documenting. Deciding which things are, and are not, worth documenting often comes down to seeing how widespread the coverage of the subject is, what kinds of sources cover it, etc. etc. That requires analysis and discussion, and isn't something we can just say "It's reliably sourced, so it must be included". Reliable sourcing is required, but is not sufficient, when deciding to include something. If there is a good faith dispute over the relevance, or wording, or phrasing, or how much of the article space to dedicate to it (if any), all of that really just depends on consensus building. There is no magic pill that means that either side in such a dispute "wins". There is only discussion and consensus. --Jayron 32
11:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Could I move that this be speedily closed? No real arguments against reliability have been presented, and I think most contributors agree that the actual question is whether the claims in the source merit inclusion in a particular article according to
WP:DUE? Boynamedsue (talk
) 14:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes Mainstream standard news organisation, passes
WP:NEWSORG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk?
18:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Has anyone provided any evidence that LBC is either "mainstream" or "standard"? Perhaps I missed it. this was literally the first secondary source I found, and it doesn't support reliability. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I thought we didn't treat MBFC as reliable for analysing RSs. Anyway, the only failed fact checks that article seems to discuss when is when their opinion commentators on-radio said something factually inaccurate. The same way we do not treat opinion pieces as reliable other than for the opinion itself the same would apply here. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 19:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree MBFC doesn't work, and isn't reliable, but everything I'm reading says that LBC is a right-wing opinionated talk radio outlet seen as an alternative, more politically incorrect and opinionated radio than the BBC. Usually in the US at least talk radio outlets lack the editorial oversight of a NEWSORG. Feel free to offer evidence otherwise. Andre🚐 21:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Andre, what is the "everything you are seeing" which suggests that LBC is a "right-wing orientated talk radio"? As mentioned above, many of their presenters are centrist or left-wing, and explicitly state those views in their show. Their news partners are Sky News, a reliable organisation, and their news output is covered by Ofcom's rules on impartiality and accuracy. These rules are actually much stricter than those which apply to the British newspapers we accept as reliable sources.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Particularly this Guardian piece. Andre🚐 08:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, that is an opinion piece from 8 years ago. A lot has changed in that time. Nobody is arguing there aren't right-wing presenters at LBC, particularly Ferrari, but flagship-presenter O'Brien (whose liberality the author questions) has become one of the strongest anti-Brexit voices in the media and is an open supporter of the current Labour leadership. And even back then, the article mentions the breakfast show hosted by Red Ken. The news coverage is regulated to be more neutral than the talk output, which would always only be valid as attributed opinion anyway. --Boynamedsue (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
That's fair, I still feel this opinionated/biased talk radio outlet isn't a reliable source for information about gender identity or medical endocrinology, or for statements such as Scottish NHS bosses have been forced to apologise and launch an investigation after the organisation published a document to its staff suggesting eunuch should be recognised as a formal gender identity, and as a result, men seeking castration should be helped to receive it. I stand by "no" Andre🚐 09:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@
WP:BIASED and might push it over to additional considerations apply, nevertheless, I still don't see a convincing case it should be downright unreliable here. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk)
09:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully, reliability requires a demonstration per
WP:BIASED but whether it is offering alternative facts as suggested by the Guardian for contentious topics. I agree there is not much evidence of RS fact-checkers checking LBC, but I do not think it should be treated as generally reliable absent evidence thereof. The idea that they have a socialist commentator means they are reliable is quite flawed and silly. Andre🚐
09:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed reply.
WP:RSOPINION is already not usable. Of course, I'm not contending that the source is generally reliable on par with BBC, it definitely needs more caution and should not be used on itself for extraordinary claims. Many thanks for your replies, let's wait for more editors to comment here and thanks again! VickKiang (talk)
09:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes we will see what others have to say, I agree that the "less reliable" or "marginally reliable/unreliable," is what I was thinking of here, as a less-established outlet and one that may be largely opinionated and should be used with care as its reliability may be unclear or considerations may apply, and may additionally be biased. However, I am open to considering additional evidence, as I understand the Guardian piece is just one old piece and is limited. Thanks. Andre🚐 09:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply! Of course, those are just my subjective takes, this isn't a RfC but if so I'd imagine a no consensus outcome. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial Here is the report from the same site you mention for the Telegraph, which is a British newspaper of record and a pretty much unquestioned source here. It gives it as further right than LBC and also mixed. I think there are possibly a lot of American users here giving opinions on media they have not actually got any direct experience of. "I don't know" is a valid response when you don't actually know. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Let's agree that MBFC is not usable per VickKiang below and established consensus. Andre🚐 09:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that The Telegraph has been documented in academic and other high-quality sources as canpaigning against transgender rights (including in its reporting), it may be your pretty much unquestioned evaluation that is in need of revision, rather than that of MBFC. And I am not an American user. Newimpartial (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
It is not my evaluation that the Telegraph is reliable, it is a collective decision of the users of wikipedia. Political positions do not affect reliability. --Boynamedsue (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
First of all, when political positions affect the selection, presentation, and language used in reporting, they most definitely do affect reliability, as plenty of discussions here at RSN van attest. And more particularly, there is in fact no consensus at enwiki that The Telegraph is actually reliable for its reporting on transgender issues; you are assuming the thing that is to be proven. A broad consensus that the Telly is "generally reliable" doesn't make it reliable in specific areas where RS has noted that it is not just a BIASEDSOURCE but actually unreliable. Newimpartial (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'm surprised I hadn't heard of that. Out of interest, where was the community discussion that agreed that the Telegraph is not reliable for questions relating to transgender issues, rather than being biased? The list of perennial sources should be updated to reflect it. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
So far, the relevant discussuons are taking place at article Talk pages, where some of the HQ/academic sources have been presented in an ad hoc way. A number of editors have acknowleged that a noticeboard discussion will be required to amend the list entry; I would attribute my own procrastination on this to (1) my preference to treat The Times and The Telegraph together on this, so we don't see Times pickups replacing Telegraph coverage (as currently happens when either source runs with a Daily Mail story for example) and (2) my inclination to wait for the academic sourcing on this to strengthen further (as seems inevitable given recent developments in the UK). Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@NewimpartialAh, I would have been surprised that the Telegraph had been agreed to be unreliable on Transgender issues, I think that might be quite hard to do. In effect you would need to show a higher degree of factual inaccuracy in the T's output on this topic than across its general output. I introduced a similar conversation a few years ago on The Jewish Chronicle's coverage of Muslims and the British left, and despite it having had dozens of regulatory judgments against it for printing false information on these topics, it still only just scraped a "no consensus it is reliable". People are very reluctant to downgrade on single topic areas, especially controversial ones. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

No per Newimpartial. Andre🚐 21:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Weak Yes, Option 1-2 if this is a four options RfC. This is a decent news organisation per
WP:RSP. VickKiang (talk)
08:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Just a note that MBFC doesn't measure reliability by Wikipedia's criteria, so it's really only useful for determining where a source stands on the U.S. political spectrum. It's standards of reliability are based on factual truthfulness, which while a very good standard, Wikipedia goes a few steps further, because user generated sources are out here; MBFC has no stance against those. Different standards are because of different purposes, it doesn't mean that one is better than the other, MBFC is fine for what it is, but it is not unreliable. It is also not reliable, it's an opinion source, and as such, doesn't fit on Wikipedia's reliability scale at all. --Jayron 32 11:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings.
WP:MBFC Andre🚐
17:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
This comes up from time to time. Please note that the RSP listing apply to use in articles, not use in talk page discussions. A number of editors, myself included, will mention Adfonts Media's bias chart when discussing sources. MBFC is another source that can be used in such discussions. Editors can consider if a source is biased, etc based in part on the MBFC listings. What we can't do is add text to articles based on that listing. We can't add, "MBFC rates CNN as an X source". Springee (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank four your replies, to me Jayron32 summarised it well. I understand that the RSP wording discourages MBFC to be included in mainspace articles as generally unreliable. On talk pages and noticeboards it is neither deprecated, disallowed, or explicitly discouraged (except for using it as the sole evidence in a RfC), but personally I take those with a grain of salt, as it's primarily one person's opinionated, poorly updated view and doesn't separate fact and opinion in the same way that WP editors do. Ad Fontes also is in the same vein but Allsides is marginally reliable. I browse some of these ratings as a good starting point when evaluating a source I don't know, it would usually not be far off but it is nowhere near decently accurate and it doesn't make sense to me that a common rating of "centre-right" and "mixed" would demonstrate unreliability. But IMHO MBFC is better than other (even worse) bias fact checkers, i.e., The Factual, which I critiqued in a separate RfC (it rates two marginally reliable sources with an almost perfect score), but to me Politifact and Snopes are way more accurate and established. VickKiang (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
If a source is unreliable, it can't be used to determine reliability. It's not categorically barred from being mentioned, but per RS, a source's reliability can only be determined by other RS. Andre🚐 20:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Where is that in policy or guideline? Springee (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. ... News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. What I guess is not explicitly spelled out but is true from long-standing consensus practice is the idea that you won't determine reliability of an RS using a non-RS. But it's clearly implied that what determines how "established," or "well-regarded," or "reputable," a source is, must itself come from other RS. Andre🚐 22:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually, we come to consensus as to what is “established”, “well-regarded”, “reputable” via the messy process of discussion (and argument) - sharing our own opinions as to the source’s reputation… it’s a purely internal determination. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The rules of the evidence for weighing that determination are that they must be reliable. Unreliable sources are not usable. And "reputable", "established", and "well-regarded" is based on what reliable sources say, in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Andre🚐 02:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
What “rules of evidence” are you referring to? We don’t have any. We simply have consensus. If a consensus of WP editors think X is reliable (or unreliable), it does not matter what people outside WP think. Sure, we can note what people outside WP think - but we are free to either accept or reject what they say, as we want. We are not bound by outside opinions. Blueboar (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm referring to reliable sources policy. Unreliable sources by long-standing consensus, such as
WP:MBFC, are not for use here. There's even text in the warning when you open an RFC that tells you not to cite MBFC. Andre🚐
03:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually it says, "Do not base your RfC solely on Media Bias/Fact Check" . It would be interesting to know who put that in and why they wouldn't say the same for other rating sites. The RSP listing for
Wikipedia:ADFONTES is almost identical. I'm not sure why ALLSIDES was treated slightly better. Basically we treat all rating sites the same way. We consider them self published and we say don't use them as references in articles. We don't say don't use them in discussions related to reliability. Yes, you aren't the only editor who makes that claim but that isn't consensus. Springee (talk
) 04:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I would tend to agree with VickKiang that this is probably in the Option 1-2 range in that it doesn't appear to be rock solid source but it also doesn't appear to have any red flags that would tell us we can't treat it as reliable or with no weight. Springee (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, mainstream site, surprised to see this being an issue. --Andreas JN 466 08:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, per Spy-cicle. - LilySophie (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No', separate from the discussion about the one specific article that started that, I find the sources about them being right-wing talk radio convincing. I don't see anyone who's offered actual proof that they are reliable, like some kind of editorial or corrections policy. The two combined means I have to vote no here (on the ordinary 4-level RFC, probably 2-3). Loki (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Their website gives a clear editorial hierarchy states they are regulated by ofcom, and links to their site. Their news output must comply this code. This is considerably stricter than the codes British newspapers, such as the Guardian, Telegraph and Times follow. Broadcasters in the UK are accepted as more neutral and reliable than newspapers, due to their strict regulation. It think that a lot of the comments here fail to understand the British media landscape.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Websites of "right-wing talk radio[s]" are not automatically unreliable. Biased != unreliable. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:4CED:61B9:CCE0:425A (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's a reliable source, not the best one but it's accurately reporting the details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's a reliable source - we've been given no reason to think otherwise. On a more general note, I think discussions and RfCs on the reliability of a source should be carefully prepared. The proponents should give examples of false or questionable reports from the source, and should also link to sources that prove that the reports published by the source are false or questionable; otherwise it all relies on a kind of moral intuition on the part of the editors as to where the Truth lies. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Gitz what makes you think the proponent (the person who created this section) wants to give you any reason to think otherwise? They've been participating at an edit war where they restored text citing LBC. They just want your YES vote, which I see you have given here and at the article. Well done. -- Colin°^Talk 18:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
It may be that the four RfCs are a case of
WP:FORUMSHOP, and if so, admins should examine them more closely, given the amount of time they have taken up. But I see that some editors have taken the four RfCs seriously and argued that articles they don't like shouldn't be used because the sources are biased and unreliable regarding to the rights of trans people. To accept this argument one needs convincing evidence: that's all I said here. As for Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People - the origin of all this - I believe this edit was well-sourced and balanced [21]. While I understand that others may disagree, the fact that they disagree because the edit is unsourced and The Times, The Telegraph and The Economist are biased sources is probably what has caused unnecessary animosity and questionable RfCs. Gitz (talk) (contribs
) 22:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

When there is a dispute at the article level over whether a source is reliable or not, filing an RFC on this Noticeboard (to see what the broader community thinks) is very appropriate. That is what this noticeboard, and reliability RFC’s are FOR. It does not matter whether the editor who initiates the RFC is “for” or “against” the source. What matters is what the broader community (especially those not involved in the initial dispute) thinks. Blueboar (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE
:
one local campaign group's statent given undue weight by placement here and a whole paragraph of exposition, I think

Very much undue in a global sense, one fringe campaign group in Scotland's commentary aren't due here. They might be due at their article, but also WP:COATRACK applies there

Sentence is WP:UNDUE. Criticism of this chapter seems to come only from trans hostile media sources, most of which we classify as unreliable (that last bit is clarified on talk as referring to the root-source of the criticism cited by the newspapers, which is For Women Scotland, Genspect, SEGM).

It is to the advantage of those wanting to insert this grossly
WP:DUE and to get even people who have never heard of LBC to vote yes on the basis that the poster didn't supply any reasons to vote no. -- Colin°^Talk
08:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps we're speaking of two different things and I might have misunderstood something, in which case I'd be happy to change my views and strike through my comments. I agree with you that this was undue [22] but arguably this was both relevant and balanced [23] and yet it was reverted because Criticism of this chapter seems to come only from trans hostile media sources, most of which we classify as unreliable[24] and because The Economist isn't really known for its expertise on medical issues, is it? [25]. Then the RfC was opened on the question "Should the article mention the controversy over the Eunuch chapter in SOC8?". Sources were The Economist, The Times, The Telegraph and also Neue Zürcher Zeitung reporting (in German) that According to the World Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), it is both necessary and desirable to include "eunuchs" as a new category under the gender diversity umbrella. Editors who !voted "No" argued that The Times, The Telegraph and The Economist - all decidedly BIASEDSOURCES and that British newspapers in general are less reliable on trans issues. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Gitz, the discussion did vere off in the direction of discussing reliability, partly by own-goals and partly because they were led in that direction. But that isn't how it started, which was very much a DUE matter, and I blame the creation of an RFC there and here, because both times the format is effectively a voting poll to answer a question posed by one side in the edit war. We know such polls are not a good way to examine an issue in seriousness.

There is a frustration with the everyday meaning of the word "reliable" and the very narrow meaning used at
WP:RS
may be DUE in one place (an article about the feminists campaing groups) but not in another (a medical guideline).

Whether one version of the edit warred text was DUE and the other wasn't isn't a matter to discuss here, and such nuance is lost by the question posed at the RFC. The third link you give reverts different text to the second link, and made an importantly misleading claim. You can ping me elsewhere if you want to discuss that further.

I think we perhaps lack a forum to discuss DUE. And we also perhaps lack guidance specifically on handling DUE from biased sources that maintain a modest reputation for fact checking an accuracy. You know the quote "The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit." How does Wikipedia maintain a neutral point of view, if some newspapers are happy to flood the zone with shit on the issue of transgender treatments and rights? -- Colin°^Talk 11:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sahapedia

Is Sahapedia (https://www.sahapedia.org/) a reliable source? Sahapedia is like an encyclopedia somewhere between a peer-reviewed journal and Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really resemble an encyclopedia all that much, and is more like a journal. Its reliability would have to be considered on an article-by-article basis. It look like the vast majority of articles are written by qualified academics, who have published articles in other academic journals. There is an editorial board (though I wouldn't characterize it as peer-reviewed). Attributed articles like these would probably qualify as reliable sources, subject to check on the individual authors' qualifications. On the other hand, the website also crowdsources some content, although it says that this material is not published without editorial review. Notwithstanding the editorial review, I would be skeptical of the crowdsourced contents not attributed to named, qualified authors.
Banks Irk (talk
) 18:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@
Banks Irk: yes, I agree. It is not quite a peer-reviewed journal and yet looks reliable to me, thus the question. I intend to use some remarks made in the beginning of this article. These remarks are themselves attributed to other academic works and I have checked these remarks against the cited sources and they seem OK. But I would not like to use Sahapedia if it is not acceptable here as RS. Chaipau (talk
) 00:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
That specific article looks ok to me. The author has been extensively published in other academic journals per Google Scholar.
Banks Irk (talk
) 00:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Black Book of Communism

(Redacted) FF toho (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur and would suggest that (once consensus is established) that we make sure it's not treated uncritically anywhere in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It's absolutely not a reliable source, though reference to it could be used carefully in situations where it is immediately contradicted by more reliable sources. Generally best to leave it out where we are merely trying to show accurate numerical data though. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Harvard University Press did not retract its version of the book, which it still sells on its website. What are you talking about? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussing this book again? IMO, we should discuss each chapter differently. It seems to me some chapters are RS, some are not. But the general rule should be: attribute whenever you are using this book as a source. It shouldnt be WP VOICE. Cinadon36 17:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I just want to highlight that this comment is an almost direct copy of this Reddit comment, and should therefore probably be removed as a copyright violation. Sam Walton (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @Samwalton9. Cinadon36 17:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@Samwalton9 and Cinadon36: I've listed it on the relevant copyright problems page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked for the pattern of copyvios. Izno (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The last time this was discussed the consensus seems to be that the source is fine to be included but should always be attributed. I think this is a reasonable approach and should be retained. — Czello 18:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Generally reliable but use with attribution. As has already been established in numerous discussions. Sheesh. Volunteer Marek 09:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

FF toho has been blocked.Xx236 (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Kotaku

Should this Kotaku article's opinions be included on Rawson Stovall? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 07:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It is clearly an opinion piece. I think most people would agree that Kotaku is sufficiently reliable for
WP:BLPN, for BLPs like that one.) --Aquillion (talk
) 09:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

In addition to what Aquillion said, the substance on Stovall in the Kotaku article appears to be taken from an old Newsweek article, and it's probably better to just cite that Newsweek article directly. Siawase (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Is grunge.com a reliable source for adding material to Buddy Holly

This article [https://www.grunge.com/714517/tragic-details-found-in-the-big-boppers-autopsy-report/] was used to add material about "The Big Bopper" to Buddy Holly's article. As it was copy and paste it was removed as a copyright violation, but as the editor says he's going to restore it somehow. It's "about" page is here.[https://www.grunge.com/about/][ Doug Weller talk 15:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say that it's not the worst site in general. They seem to cite their sources; which is a sine qua non property of other reliable sources themselves. That being said, I believe you're taking the completely wrong tactic for objecting to the text. Even if it were scrupulously referenced to the most reliable source ever in existence and if God themselves came down and anointed the source as perfect, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. I fail to see how the additional information being added is relevant to an article about Buddy Holly. There is already a paragraph covering the information about the Big Bopper's death and about the minor controversy of the finding of Holly's gun some time later at the scene. The information in the Grunge article provides nothing extra relevant to the Wikipedia Buddy Holly article. You can reject the additional text out of hand without even discussing the reliability of the source, per
WP:ONUS. There's no need to even debate the source; the additional information isn't relevant to the Buddy Holly article regardless of which source it comes from. --Jayron 32
15:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
@Jayron32 thanks. I agree about it not being relevant and planned to reject it. The original editor seems to feel very strongly about including it, not sure why. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I usually always start with relevance as my first leg; reliability is pointless when the relevance isn't demonstrated. If something is relevant, then we can start looking for reliable sources about it. --Jayron 32 16:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Chara Biz.com

Is www.charabiz.com a reliable source for Japanese sales data?
source is videly used at List of highest-grossing media franchises and other Japanese Franchise articles.(such as Anpanman [26] for example) Timur9008 (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a kind of "about us" page. Google translate is a bit garbled but they seem to just republish press releases, they seem reliable but probably of no use for proving notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Interesting. So its ok to remove this source from these articles then? Would love some more imput and if possible get some consensus. Timur9008 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
It's probably good for sales figures, but a secondary source would be better -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Charabiz is a pretty big player in its field, not just some site republishing press releases. They cooperate in the Japan Character Awards, which in turn is supported by the Japanese government. They use the name "Character Databank" along with Charabiz[27] and searching for "Character Databank" you can see they sometimes get cited by reliable sources, in particular their character rankings. NY Times cited their rankings and described them as a "research firm" in 2010.[28] and ditto LA Times in 2014.[29] But as per their English language company profile[30] they also work in marketing, so that's a caveat.

Their publications appear to be intended for use within the industry rather than for the general public, and I'm unsure how Wikipedia should handle them. But I would say at the very least their own publications can be cited, with
WP:SPS
from the companies in question.

As for how sales numbers from them are used in the chart in the
WP:WIKIVOICE, that might be a bit more questionable. Also, unrelated to this board but just as a practical matter, given the history of this type of articles being edited by a sock of a user banned for misuse of sources (User:Maestro2016) I seriously question if the citations to the Charabiz publications have actually been verified. These publications are $200-300 a piece[31] and the Anpanman article references a half dozen or so of them. Siawase (talk
) 12:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I asked regarding the site because Maestro2016 who is now banned has used it. Timur9008 (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I think the practical thing to do for now would be to remove material cited by Maestro2016 to Charabiz. If/when some editor who isn't banned gets access to Charabiz publications the issue of how to use them can be revisited. I looked at the history of sockpuppet investigations, and Maestro2016 and socks have a pattern of specifically misusing difficult to obtain sources[32] so there is no reason to believe these were accurately cited. Siawase (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The "Russian Constitution"

There is agreement at Talk:Republics of Russia that the Russian Constitution is a primary source.
Do editors here consider the Russian Constitution (Конституция Российской Федерации) (relevant section apparently here) and the Russian government's website, reliable sources for the notion that territories in Ukraine are now constituent territories of Russia? This is for the article Republics of Russia. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course not. All the source establishes is that the Russian government claims that the territories in Ukraine now belong to Russia. The fact that Putin's government makes that claim can be established through secondary sources, such as major newspapers, so there's no need to cite a primary source. NightHeron (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is a reliability issue. The constitution is a reliable source for the statement "Russia considers X its territory." We should also say who controls the said territory and that it's considered Ukraine by nearly all other countries. Alaexis_¿question? 10:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Normally I would agree with you Alaexis, as I agree with NightHeron that it essentially goes without saying. But another editor has claimed at talk (in the 2nd para of this long post), that there's no other meaningful standard for determining the number of territories and We could use these two primary sources on the federal subjects of the Federation. I agree with your view that any statement based on these sources would need to be framed as "the Russian government considers...", but am seeking more eyes on this. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
“Meaningful standard for determining the number of territories”: this is not a physical phenomenon that has an absolute measure. Number of legal territories within Russia’s UN-recognized borders? Number of illegally claimed territories including in Ukrainian territory that’s partly occupied and contested during the war? Different things. —Michael Z. 21:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Government websites containing codified law are reliable for the position of that government, so I see no problem with citing these webpages for their claim. The issue here is not reliability but how (and if) to add DPR and LPR to the list of these republics without equating these republics to those internationally recognised as part of Russia (Dagestan, Buryatia etc.). You should make it clear through secondary, reliable and independent sources that not all of the claimed territories are controlled by the Russians and that (almost) no one says these territories are Russian. I believe a good way forward is to have two tables, one for republics that are legitimately part of Russia and others that are not but are administered by the country. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I also agree with this view, and that solution is what I advocate in the RFC on that subject. This specific discussion is about the lead of the article (see talk link in my previous comment). Cambial — foliar❧ 11:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It'll be as reliable as any particular constitution, which are primary sources. On this particular issue, the last I read up on the matter the constitution mostly just listed the entities, and did not define much about the supposed new territories (eg. their borders), so the constitution is likely insufficient for even the Russian stance. I think Alaexis is right that this is not really a reliability question but a question of effective framing. There's not really an exact parallel given there is an active war. Looking around, for uncontrolled areas Territories of the United States lists them and Provinces of China includes them in a different colour, and for controlled territories Regions of France doesn't distinguish Mayotte and Prefectures and provinces of Morocco puts the Western Sahara territories into their own subsection. That said, there is an active war, so it seems inappropriate to note anything as strictly controlled, and the page remains subject to changing current events. CMD (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

They are RS for Russia's claim, not for that claim being true (or even what they claim actually constitutes, geographically). Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Provinces of China is a good reference point. As is well known, China (officially the People's Republic of China) claims sovereignty over Taiwan, which it considers as one of its provinces, the Taiwan Province. However, China has never administered this territory, which is controlled by an autonomous and de facto separate country, Taiwan (officially the Republic of China). China has much less control over Taiwan than Russia has over Crimea and the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. However, in the article on Provinces of China 34 provinces are listed, so Taiwan Province is included in both the lead, body and table of the article, while its disputed status is duly mentioned and made clear to readers. Why can't we do the same with Republics of Russia? The number and name of Russian republics is determined by Russian public law, just as the number and name of Chinese provinces is determined by Chinese law. We can use the recently amended Russian constitution as a primary source, the Government website as another primary source, and various news reports as secondary sources, and report that today Russia consists of 24 Republics, three of which are not internationally recognised as legitimate authorities over the Ukrainian regions they claim as their territory. This has been my position since the very beginning of the long discussions on that article [33], and it has found unyielding, quite aggressive opposition from Cambial Yellowing and others, who for some reason think that the article Republics of Russia is not about a set of legal constructs, but about actual geographical areas and their inhabitants and governance [34]. Please express your views in the RfC now open on that talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It is true that my and other's opposition to your expressed desire to ignore our obligation to present a neutral point of view – by presenting Russian government claims in wikivoice – has been unyielding. That’s because the
WP:NPOV policy is non-negotiable. It’s entirely correct that editors not yield to your repetition ad nauseam of the same few transparently flawed and unpersuasive arguments. Cambial — foliar❧
22:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Since my arguments have so far been shared by at least six other editors, some of whom are far more experienced than you, there's no point in being so emphatic - transparently flawed and unpersuasive arguments - and repeating "I am Policy, I am Policy, I don't negotiate with anybody". It may well be that Republics of Russia is not about geographical areas and their inhabitants. I suggest you read the article: it's not that long and you might find it interesting. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Your evident need to resort to the most absurd of straw men (“I am policy” etc. - who do you think you are fooling?) and mere invention (no-one has shared your argument that “Russian public law establishes fact”) to try to defend your position speaks to its lack of foundation. You’ll recall that there is no hierarchy of editors here. It’s not going to turn out that the article Republics of Russia is about something other than what reliable sources say it is. I suggest you refer to reliable sources on the topic, and the policies guiding their use here. You’ll find them instructive. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
As for sources, you argue that we should determine the number of Russian Republics by recourse to sources other than the Russian constitution, but so far you haven't been able to find anything else. The only secondary source on the number of Republics after the October 2022 annexations is an op-ed published in the Kyiv Post - so definitely not Russian propaganda - and it says... 24 Republics [35]! Ooh la la, the same number that the Russian constitution states, what a coincidence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Is there genuinely part of your mind that believes that repetition of the same facile argument will be more effective or persuasive a second or third time? You already made this claim here. As was pointed out to you then, we have an academic reference work used as a source in the article. No reliable sources have indicated that Luhansk and Donetsk are now republics of Russia, and a passing mention in one opinion piece is not a reliable source. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not wikivoice. But the question is whether "according to its constitution" is due weight there. Mellk (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
By there do you mean in the lead? The Russian government view is given in the lead as I added it. There’s been no discernible dispute about their attributed view constituting due weight in that paragraph. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I meant in the first sentence (what it was like previously) or even the opening paragraph. Mellk (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
"According to its constitution" might be UNDUE if there were other significant viewpoints on the number of Russian Republics. So far, however, no one has ever found a source showing that there's disagreement that the number of Russian subdivisions is determined by the Russian constitution. AFIK there's not a debate on this, with the Russians claiming that there are 24 Russian republics and the Ukrainians 21. Neither the Ukrainians nor the international community are interested in the number of Russian administrative subdivisions - they are interested in territory and in sovereignty over the territory. I agreed with dropping "According to its constitution" not because it was UNDUE, but (in the absence of other viewpoints on the subject) because it was redundant and irrelevant. Gitz (talk)
It's a waste of time typing out a different response to your repetition of the same argument and the same false premise on which it depends. Thus: You already made this claim here. As was pointed out to you then, we have an academic reference work used as a source in the article [it says 22]. No reliable sources have indicated that Luhansk and Donetsk are now republics of Russia. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The academic reference used as a source in the article (this [36]) was written before the annexations of DPR and LPR. It mentions 22 Republics, thus acknowledging that the amendment to the Russian constitution following the annexation of Crimea succeeded in creating a new Russian republic, the
WP:AGEMATTERS, the pre-2022 academic reference is no longer reliable on the number of Russian republics, which is now 24 instead of 22, as reported by the Russian constitution, government websites, and the Kyiv Post op-ed. Gitz (talk) (contribs
) 10:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
as reported by the Russian constitution, government websites, and the Kyiv Post op-ed: none of which are reliable sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
They are not unreliable for anything. See for example
WP:PRIMARY. Unless you meant unreliable for wikivoice? Mellk (talk
) 16:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Every Republic of Russia, for example Tatarstan, is NOT just a legal construct, but a specified territory, people who live there, etc. (as our page say, "The Republics of Russia are 22 territories in the Russian Federation". Territories.) Now, let's consider someone claiming that the entire Donetsk Oblast or Kherson Oblast of Ukraine "is a territory of Russia", as Peskov does or as framed in the question at the top of this thread. That is obviously a false statement because at least a part of the territory is controlled by Ukraine, was never controlled by Russia and an internationally recognized territory of Ukraine. Using Russian constitution to support such false statement means promoting misinformation. As frequently on RSNB, this is not a matter of a source, but of a statement it supports. By the same reasoning, Taiwan is not a legal construct, but an actually existing territory with people. Is it in fact a territory of mainland People's Republic of China? No, of course not. Therefore, I believe that placing it to the map on page Provinces of China was misleading, even though it is marked by a different color. It should not be there. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

P.S. For the same reason Kuril Islands are not shown and not described as a part of Japan in Administrative divisions of Japan, and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're mistaken. From Japan's point of view, the Kuril Islands are part of the Nemuro Subprefecture of Hokkaido Prefecture. Both in the
Hokkaido Prefecture article, the Kuril Islands are mentioned as territory claimed by Japan, and the maps show Hokkaido within Japan, including the disputed Kuril islands and Nemuro Subprefecture is blue. The claimed islands and districts (Northern Territories) are grey. The Kuril Islands are not described as a self-standing administrative division of Japan in Administrative divisions of Japan simply because they are not a self-standing administrative division (a prefecture): they are part of a subprefecture, and "Administrative divisions of Japan" lists only prefectures. The example you provided strengthens my argument. Gitz (talk) (contribs
) 14:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a big difference between saying "this territory is claimed by state X" (Japan in this example) and saying "this territory is [in fact] a part of state X". The phrasing at the top of this thread implies the latter, just as phrasing on the page itself ("The republics of Russia are [N] territories in the Russian Federation..."). Consider our page just bluntly saying "the state of Japan includes 4 Kuril Islands". My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that Japan claims only four of the islands, not the entire thing. The relevant page is Subprefectures of Hokkaido. Mellk (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Not reliable for a claim like "Kherson is part of Russia". But reliable for a claim like "According to Russia, Kherson is part of Russia." Similarly for Donetsk, Lugansk, Crimea, and Zaporizhzhia. I think this summarizes the opinions of most users who have commented on this thread. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment Given how contentious this appears to be, I think a formal close of this thread, with a summary of the discussion, would be a good idea. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Adoring nanny's comment and I too would support a formal closure of the discussion. But please note the following:
On Republics of Russia no one has ever argued that Kherson, Donetsk, Lugansk, Crimea, and Zaporizhzhia are part of Russia. I personally believe that they are part of Ukraine: the Russian annexation was illegal under current international law. The OP of this discussion is a prime example of a straw man: no one has ever claimed that the Russian constitution is a reliable source for the notion that territories in Ukraine are now constituent territories of Russia.

What we've been discussing is whether the Russian constitution is a reliable source for the notion that the Republic of Crimea, the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic are Russian Republics (in which case, Republics of Russia should list 24 republics). This is the controversial issue upon which a formal closure would be highly desirable. I don't know why some editors do not understand the distinction between question 1 and question 2. Anyway, question 1 is a nonexistent and made-up question, while question 2 is apparently very contentious. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

"no one has ever argued that Kherson, Donetsk, Lugansk, Crimea, and Zaporizhzhia are part of Russia". Oh no, that is exactly what our page says ("The republics of Russia are [N] territories in the Russian Federation..."), and that is exactly what this thread and the ANI complaint was about. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
One of the meanings of the word territory is "a large area that has some local government but fewer rights than a province or a state" [37], "an organized division of a country that is not yet admitted to the full rights of a state" [38]. This meaning is particulary evident when the word is used as plural ("territories"). This meaning would be even more evident if Cambial had not modified the opening sentence of the article: "According to its constitution, the republics of Russia are 24 territories in the Russian Federation that each constitute a federal subject". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

What you, Gitz, describe as a "controversial issue" or "contentious" is only contentious insofar as one editor, Gitz, has sought to aggressively but unpersuasively argue at length that the Russian constitution is a reliable source for the notion that the Republic of Crimea, the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic are Russian Republics.

No other editors agree with this. Given that context, it’s evidently not so much a contentious issue as one editor making a contentious argument in the face of unanimous opposition. This is sometimes described on Wikipedia as
WP:IDHT. Cambial — foliar❧
17:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

it’s sealioning. He will continue to do this as long as somebody answers him. No, there is no reason why the Russian Constitution would be a reliable source for this claim, which he says is obvious on its face. Yet he cannot produce a secondary source, shrug. We just went all through this when he took it to ANI. It is a silly contention, and it isn’t uncivil to say so. BTW: I am not sure what the history is for the provinces of China, but neither the provinces of Ireland nor the provinces of France correspond to the current administrative jurisdictions, so the parallel may be flawed. 21:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)
A quick skim of Provinces of China indicates that Taiwan was a province in the Qing dynasty. Which would explain its inclusion. Note however the big disclaimer in the lede about this point.Elinruby (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
It had never occurred to me before that province of Taiwan might have been listed as a province of the People's Republic of China because it was a Chinese province during the Qing dynasty. While the hypothesis fascinating, I beg to disagree.

The discussion may also benefit from a comparison with
DPR and the LPR as republics of Russia, and listing Donetsk and Luhansk as oblasts of Ukraine
.

As far as
Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts
to conclude that today Russia is divided into 22+2=republics. If I'm wrong, we'll have to wait a few months or weeks for academic secondary sources stating what everybody already knows. But note that if I'm wrong we should modify also the following articles:
Donetsk People's Republic: After the annexation, Russia views the DPR and LPR as Russian republics

Luhansk People's Republic: After the annexation, Russia views the DPR and LPR as Russian republics

Flags of the federal subjects of Russia: 24 Republics

Political divisions of Russia: 24 Republics

Federation Council (Russia): Each of the 89[2] federal subjects of Russia – consisting of 24 republics

Krais of Russia: The country is divided into 89 federal subjects, of which nine are krais (thus including the DPR, the LPR, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia)

Federal subjects of Russia: the list "Federal Subjects of the Russian Federation" includes the disputed territories

Since I haven't included any of these contents, Cambial's claim that No other editors agree is wrong (in fact, one only has to read the discussions on the talk page to see that it is wrong): reporting "24 republics" is the reasonable, commonsensical thing to do, and it has nothing to do with the issues of the Russia–Ukraine border. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I am sure you do disagree. Since you apparently have no other arguments to make, apart from an appeal to authority based on Wikipedia articles, excuse me if I am not convinced by your wall of text. It is quite possible that those articles also suffer from the problem you want to create in this one. Secondary sources, dude. Secondary sources. Elinruby (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This source (official website of the Russian Federation Council) is sufficient, as there are no sources (published after 30 September 2022) that state the contrary. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

No it is not, as multiple people have tried to tell you. Multiple times. Putin is not a reliable source as to the extent of his authority. That will not change no matter how many walls of text you post. The OP is correct, and you are not. Someone should close this thread. Elinruby (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Gitz said: "we'll have to wait a few months". Yes, I think that's a good idea because they will probably have to change their "Constitution" in a few months when these territories will be taken back by Ukrainian forces, and when claiming this nonsense will no longer serve Russian propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Use secondary sources: there's no need to conduct original research based on the Russian constitution; for any substantive position taken by the Russian government, reliable secondary sources will likely exist. If secondary sources do not cover such positions, then this content would likely be undue for the articles. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Birmingham Mail

I initially questioned the reliability of Birmingham Mail only because it's owned by Reach plc, which also owns ~~deprecated Daily Mail and~~ still questionable Daily Mirror. I just now undid tagging on Birmingham Mail after I received a message comparing Reach to News UK, owner of The Sun (deprecated) and The Times of London (generally reliable), and stating that more than three thousand articles, including several FAs and GAs, cite Birmingham Mail for their own statements. I can't help wonder whether either I was generalizing Reach plc inappropriately or the source itself may not be as reliable as generally perceived to be. George Ho (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC); my bad, 21:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Mail isn't owned by Reach plc. It's owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Correction: Reach plc does not publish the Daily Mail, which is published by the Daily Mail and General Trust. Reach plc is a major publisher in the UK that publishes both major national newspapers (some of which are unreliable, like the Daily Express), as well as many local newspapers. I don't think it's fair to judge a newspaper by its stablemates, just as we shouldn't judge i (newspaper) (which is considered generally reliable) for being owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What do other reliable sources have to say about the Birmingham Mail? --Jayron 32 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Couldn't find independent reliable sources covering its reliability. And I couldn't find any useful info from the article's sources unless I overlooked something. George Ho (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this okay?

Hello I wanted to know if this action by an editor is valid [39]. I mean as they have explained in their edit summary, the mention of "emails" it's absolutely not. The sources are taken from
Wikipedia:Helpdesk#November 19 ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact)
13:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a mailing list/forum can be considered a reliable source. Who wrote these emails? Why should we believe what they wrote? Even if satisfactory answers can be provided to both questions, how can we be sure that the emails are reproduced faithfully on mail-archive.com? Alaexis_¿question? 07:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Web fourms can be considered reliable as per
WP:HD if you have any questions ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact)
10:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
You are right that a forum or mailing list *may* be reliable. However the onus is on you to demonstrate it if you want to use it as a source. Who wrote emails that you want to use? Why can they be considered an expert? Alaexis_¿question? 10:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I've explained it above and said more than once. The names of those who have written have their opinions or content is "mentioned" in the forums. Why they can be considered an expert? Because the internet says so. You yourself can do a google search on the names mentioned in the forum. Some of them have mentioned from which publication they represent. What's not to believe that they're NOT experts in their respective fields when sources say so? ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 16:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
This is not what the
policy
says

“ That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. 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. ”

If the inclusion of this source has been challenged, the onus is on you to demonstrate that the source satisfies these criteria. Cheers, Alaexis_¿question? 20:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Alaexis, I haven't denied about the inclusion of these authors or editors in reliable sources, since Goanet is run by volunteers too which are itself experienced expert people like here's an snippet mention about the article subject here by Bosco Dmello, [41], a more detailed information about volunteers on Goanet and some of history can be found here by Navhind Times here [42]. I don't believe some random person being on the admin team of two decades old mailing list/general forum. Of course the onus is on me, I'm not that naive to include literally any junk as additional citations in an article. I simply cannot comprehend WHY these sources cannot be considered reliable yet despite their history and their team of volunteers. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 12:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
If you want to use these sources you need to answer two questions
Who wrote emails that you want to use? You need to provide names rather than sending other editors to look for them somewhere.

Why can they be considered experts? Here you need to show that they satisfy the criteria from WP:SPS, that is, their "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Again, you need to provide them rather than telling people to google them.

This is what the policies say. If you provide the answers no one will be against including it. Alaexis_¿question? 14:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Lmao, I just gave an example of Bosco though. Did you check that? I'm not sure you're reading everything of my reply are you? Though I completely agree on your take at this and keeping it simple. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 18:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

An interesting example of one of the mail archives mentioned is at Maria Aurora Couto, [43]. Ignoring copyright concerns (ugh), it's a copy-paste of a book review by a person (Mario Cabral) with other reviews in Wikipedia articles and is published by The Tehelka which appears to be a solid source. If this was an email from Cabral (and the email address was one that Cabral was known to use) that was a review, and not a casual response, I would support the use as a source. Ravensfire (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

And if the mail is the only source for the whatever, should it be used per
WP:PROPORTION? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk
) 10:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Questions on
WP:PROPORTION is irrelevant and is not an issue. These sources are NOT the only source for the "whatever", rather they're used as additional citations for a much better reading or to support the statements present in the article. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact)
16:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
First, thank you again for the lack of notification, Rejoy2003. Please don't ask others to review an editors actions without notifying them. Second, if the material is supported by a good, secondary reliable source, a poor quality source like this is NOT needed.
WP:OVERCITE - when you only need one good source, use only that. Emails from random people without editorial oversight are not going to be good sources. Ravensfire (talk
) 16:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Asking for further review

In a series of edits [44], Rejoy2003 has added back nearly all of the email sources I had removed. I'd like for some outside review on the sources. Note that most of the time, these are in addition to other sources and I really don't think they are needed, but Rejoy2003 is pushing hard to keep them in for some reason.

Multiple e-mails from Miguel Braganza, with an edit summary on the first of "Author is Miguel Braganza. A noted editor from Goa and has several publications in his name, read [45]" Braganza is a horticulturist, and I would be glad to take them as an expert there, but the context isn't around horticulture - [46],

Joel Morais, with an edit summary that says they are published at [47] which looks like a great editorial, but call them an expert for this as a source [48]?

Rajan Parrikar, with an edit summary noting research at [49] with 4 papers from 1991 - 2002 related to electrical engineering, but the source [50] is a reprint of a letter to the editor from a blogger. First, not an expert in this area and second, this isn't the actual author of the editorial.

Thanks for your thoughts. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Cultural publications and their use as RS

I am still quite green (no name pun intended) in the editing side of things, and recently took over the
WP:RS (or, at least used as core references in general) in regards to referencing the notability of other (particularly male) artists in that space, and it appears that that has been done for years (at least dating back to 2014, based on some quick dives into edits on those articles). Some of the articles make exclusive use of such sources. But the use of those sources is being question for RS for this artist, and the article on her was nominated for deletion
.
I don't believe that this case is an issue of gender discrimination. Rather, I believe it is an issue of disregarding cultural publications as RS. I worry what this means in terms of representation on WP as a whole, not just for Jews (though, of course, for us as well, being interested in my own people), but for all other religious and ethnic minorities and their cultural publications, specifically artists. The article on her is better-referenced than some ultra-Orthodox musicians (most or all of them male, and even some of them who are far better established, and better known than her). It concerns me that someone (possibly one of the editors who has been most active in the deletion discussion) will make it their business to hunt down and erase those more poorly-referenced articles, even though some are bigger names than her in the world of Jewish music (talking about how big a male artist or group is in the world of ultra-Orthodoxy is a bit of a wonky scale anyway, as female artists have had a massive uphill battle due to the rules in that sect surrounding men listening to women sing - and in some subgroups, even women performing or speaking publicly in any form that is not exclusively for female consumption. That issue has evolved further in some sect in recent years). I want the articles on them remain on WP just as I want hers to... well, remain, now that it's in
WP:AfD
.
In regards to ultra-Orthodox Jews, and specifically
The Canadian Jewish News comes to mind as well (centre-left leaning). Kikar HaShabbat (website)
is an Israeli, Hebrew-language one that is specific to the ultra-Orthodox sect as well. Maybe Kveller too. These are just a few, and meant to be an example of Jewish cultural publications. There must be Muslim, Asian, African, etc. cultural or ethnic publications similar to these that others could note.
To be clear, I am not attesting to the reliability of all (or even most) of those publications in terms of things like politics, but I do believe they can speak with an acceptable level of authority in terms of the existence of an artist from that cultural group, and what that artist is up to. I know there are countless musical, theatrical, visual, etc. artists out there from many cultures, and WP probably can't detail them all, but certainly the ones that are well known and celebrated within those cultural groups (or receiving some kind of attention from those publications over multiple years of their careers) should be given a shot. As noted, I'm part of a different sect from the artists about which I'm writing, and it's important to me that they remain on WP. I don't think we should only be able to know about artists who go viral and get a deal with Universal or Sony (no offense to them, or their broader successes). GreenEli (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

So, I've just gone through the AFD you cite in your opening statement, and I'm just not seeing it in the way that you have characterized it. The main focus seems to be on the sourcing necessary to establish a subject merits an article.
Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Most of the discussion centers around the notions primarily of "independence", which generally means a few things 1) a source needs to be about the subject and not by the subject. Insofar as an interview is the subject's own words, interviews can't be seen as independent because of that and 2) The source needs to be written by someone unconnected to the subject, i.e. not their family member, employer or employee, organization they belong to, etc. Secondly, sources need to be significantly about the subject. Not merely that the subject is named, mentioned, etc. For when the subject of the article is a person, I would expect the source to contain non-trivial and significant biographical information about them. I'm not sure we have that here. What I don't see in the thread you linked is any discussion around "disregarding cultural publications as RS". I don't see where anyone has mentioned that, or where anyone has told you that in any way. Oaktree mentioned that only one news source discussed the person, generally multiple sources are needed to establish notability, and that the mentions were trivial (wedding announcements and the like). Lamona chimed in that many of the sources in the article itself didn't even mention the subject of the article, and then noting that (for the reason I noted above) that interviews are not independent enough to count for notability purposes. That's literally all I see in that thread regarding the sources. I don't see anyone arguing to disregard "cultural publications". Unless you have a different example, I'm afraid you've invented a situation that doesn't exist, at least in the link you provided in the first sentence. --Jayron 32
18:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@
WP:CANVASS people to the AfD, the only specific cultural news source that you've mentioned here that you've cited for the article Chanale is COLLive
. If you want to seek opinions on that particular source, then go ahead and start another discussion. But most of what you've said doesn't have any bearing on the reality of that article's situation, and nobody at that AfD said that COLLive is unreliable.

What they said was that the coverage from COLLive was not independent nor significant, and that's a general rule with interviews that we apply to pretty much everyone on this site. Quoting someone from that AfD: No where did I or anyone say that "Jewish culturally significant information sources" are not reliable sources. COLLive is probably a reliable source, but the COLLive articles here are not significant sources because they are only mentions of her. An interview with the subject or an article based entirely around one does not constitute a good source for establishing notability. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Chess, sorry that I haven't replied since yesterday. I started composing a reply to Jayron32, but had other things to deal with, and have only just been able to get back to it now.

In regards to the canvassing accusation, my initial writing of my post didn't include a link to the article or discussion (specifically because of that concern), but I felt that it would be of no use to anyone considering the topic if the article in question was left unidentified. Rather than end up with it having to be requested, I included it, and I wouldn't expect that subject of the article is going to elicit any drive for onlookers here to jump into that conversation. My intention was to have COLLive and other cultural sources considered as reliable in regards to subjects in their space, and that I would be able to secure it and their use as RS for such articles (yes, including this one, but not with the need or intention to pull editors into the AfD discussion). I'll continue where I left off my reply to Jayron32 and then circle back to the rest of your reply for any portion of my original reply (and further writing now) that doesn't address a point you've raised.

Original, as started yesterday--

Thank you for your input. If I'm worried about a nothingburger, that's great (in terms of the fear that I raise here about potential deletion for other articles). I am not taking issue with not accepting interviews as highly as general articles about a subject. In terms of your note regarding independence of a source from the subject, I don't believe that issue has been raised by any of the article's detractors following my removal of the references linked to her podcast, and one that made no mention of her (save for one that remains that is connected to her, but for which I have not received guidance as to how to include the connection in the article). Interviews aside:

Reference 1 is by a staff reporter at COLLive, and is about her move to Israel and the new album about which the article was written. Is that not independent? Is it being considered an interview?

Reference 2 is an interview, yes. Does that mean it needs to be fully stricken as a reference? If it can be kept, but is not ranked as well, I can't (as far as I know) rank references by significance instead of order in which they appear.

Reference 3 is the article that mentions her great-grandfather's introduction of a specific nigun. This is the one that doesn't mention her, and I kept asking about the appropriate way to keep that article linked while removing it as a reference. I have yet to receive an answer to that.

Reference 4 is, admittedly, not an article about her, and is, instead, about her family members who died in the event covered in the article. As far as I understand, it should remain, as it is a good reference for that part of the article.

Reference 5 is an article that is not exclusively about her, but contains a significant portion of biographical information within its two pages, and, again, was published by an independent source.

Reference 6 is an article exclusively about her, written and published by an independent source.

Continuing from yesterday--

Reference 7 is a very short article about a property on which she worked and is featured. I can understand it not being a significant source reference, but the information is correct. I couldn't see a reason to remove it from the article as I found it when I began editing.

References 8 through 11 are much the same; they are not significant references, but contain accurate, related information, and 11 (though short) is from The Jerusalem Post, an internationally recognized publication, and one that's come up in discussion on the notice boards multiple times.

Within this list, there are at least three articles from independent sources that are about her, either exclusively or in large part. Or, they are at least independent based on the criteria listed by Jayron32, above.

I do believe that I have characterized what is happening in that discussion, at least in regards to Oaktree's responses (Lamona comes across as far more interested in the actual discussion of the subject's merit and the amount of biographical information within the bigger sources). As it is, the subject of source independence has not even come up once in the AfD discussion. Within that discussion, I made the same points here, as I did there, and Oaktree completely disregarded them, whereas it just seems that Lamona missed them somehow. I've received further comment from Lamona, and another editor recently stepped in noting them, earlier today, and I have to look further into that.

Chess, to the point about Lamona's reply which you quoted, you're correct that they replied that. My concern is not related to Lamona not considering COLLive as RS as a whole (not following that reply, anyway). Oaktree is the place from which the concern stems, especially given the purposeful lack of explanation as to what made only one of the sources RS in his eyes (he explicitly refused to explain). As he said, "We'd consider a peer-reviewed journal as the gold standard for sourcing, then a feature in something like the New York Times (or other prominent newspaper or magazine) about the individual, then a book chapter/entire book about them. Then the sourcing quality goes down from there." Does that not suggesting discounting the importance of a publication like COLLive or the other Jewish publications (I realize that it doesn't have the same stature as something like NYTimes, but that doesn't mean it should, therefore, automatically be considered as lacking value as a source).

Is there something else I'm misunderstanding about how articles on a subject are considered toward RS? Does any article on (or significantly featuring) a person that includes a quote from that person automatically count as an interview?

Apologies if this reply is exceedingly lengthy. GreenEli (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Chess By the way, to your suggestion, I will start a separate discussion on COLLive when I have a moment. GreenEli (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Just passing by-
WP:SIGCOV about an article currently at AfD, I would recommend you post your rationales there instead of at this noticeboard, otherwise it isn't appropriate to continuously post at this forum. VickKiang (talk)
02:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
VickKiang apologizing again. I am continuing discussions about the article there, though source independence has still not actually come up at all in that discussion, even once. As stated in my previous reply, discussion about the article itself was not my intention. GreenEli (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

West Herzegovina Canton Symbols

After discussion at the DRN, the discussion at Talk:West Herzegovina Canton § Flag concerning West Herzegovina Canton's coat of arms and flag (referred to as "the symbols" below) has been moved here. The arguments for and against the sources below are presented on the aforementioned pages. In summary, there were provisions in the canton's constitution defining the symbols that were deemed unconstitutional by the constitutional court in 1998. After that, the canton amended the constitution to remove said provisions in 2000 and passed laws that define and regulate the usage of the symbols in 2003. The questions are as follows:

Are Livno-Online, Mayor of the local municipality, RTRS, Federalna RTV, and SrpskaInfo reliable sources to verify that the symbols are currently unconstitutional?

Are Interview with an "expert in the field of constitutional law" and "former judge of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia and president of the Constitutional Court of FBiH" (Avaz, June 2018), and Osporene zastave i grbovi i nakon deset godina (Oslobođenje, February 2007) reliable sources to verify that the symbols are currently unconstitutional?

Is page 123 of this ombudsman report a reliable source to verify that the symbols are currently constitutional?

Is page 63 of this ombudsman report a reliable source to verify that the symbols are currently unconstitutional?

Is a page from a blog belonging to Željko Heimer, a claimed vexillology expert, a reliable source to verify that the symbols are currently constitutional?

Are the law on the usage of the symbols and the law defining the symbols reliable primary sources to verify that the symbols are currently constitutional?

Aaron Liu (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this a good enough subject for an RFC? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Either we could ask for help from related WikiProject, or go with an RfC in couple of days... Governor Sheng (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Is PiunikaWeb a reliable source?

Is this source like [51] reliable for citing technical issues including video game glitches. 125.163.95.146 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of PiunikaWeb, 'Video game glitches' are unlikely to be worth discussing in articles unless there has been significant coverage in multiple sources. All software has bugs... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

That article seems to be using reddit and twitter posts as sources with no independent reporting or fact checking, so I don't see how it could be considered a reliable source. For an example of the kind of sources and coverage that would be appropriate for including this type of thing, see Cyberpunk 2077#Technical issues. Siawase (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Both sources that this article cites are not reliable (see
WP:RSP). But that doesn't mean other PiunikaWeb articles are automatically unreliable and always check the sources that these articles from this aforementioned website even if the article seems reliable. 125.163.95.146 (talk
) 11:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Add NHK World-Japan

In my opinion, this should be considered an extremely reliable source
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/list/
here's some random samples of articles on various topics
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20221118_29/
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20221117_29/
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20221123_19/
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20221117_42/
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20221119_17/

As of right now, there is a lot of news on ukraine (as expected given the scope of the war). The articles are extremely direct without any commentary from the author (who often isn't even listed). Events are given as a factual summary and pretty much everything is attributed to "X said"/"According to Y".
When it comes to things involving china, north korea or russia there is a definite negative selection bias in topics reported (but if we were to use that as a reason to exclude, we wouldn't have any news sources left anywhere) DarmaniLink (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that NHK is a lot like the BBC in terms of its editorial independence and respectability. Are people objecting to the use of NHK as a source for facts on the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, or for coverage of East Asian politics? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd just like to see it added as one of the reliable sources on the reliable sources page DarmaniLink (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Previous discussion from last year in the archive: [52]

And yes, like the article here (
WP:BIASED. Siawase (talk
) 15:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliable I've not come across anything where NHK could be said to not be unreliable. If it were TBS it would be a different story, but NHK is considered reliable. Canterbury Tail talk 16:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

British Travel Writing: Women’s Travel Writing, 1780–1840

What is the reliability of this website https://btw.wlv.ac.uk/ ? According to its about page, the project was done by Benjamin Colbert and others by researching original archives. The website seem to be officially supported by the University of Wolverhampton (subdomain and logo). It also received grants, one from the University of Wolverhampton. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer: The material on the site is probably verified and accurately represented to academic standards, but which parts of it are you intending to use on Wikipedia, and how? It's not readily apparent from a quick check of the site how it might be used here, ie, much of the material appears to be private letters not intended for publication. Siawase (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
@Siawase I intend to use it [only] for biographical articles based on the the biographical entries on the site. To start with, Marianne Postans https://btw.wlv.ac.uk/authors/1113 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
@
WP:SPS by a subject matter expert. Since Colbert is both editor of the project and author of the biographies, there doesn't appear to be any clear independent editorial oversight or peer review, although from the about page the project has had some outside feedback. Siawase (talk
) 11:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Just to note they would only be useful outside of
WP:SPS sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords
° 11:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Considering the scope of the project is 1780–1840 I didn't think that needed mention. But yes, if any still living people do come up in the biographies, that would not be usable on Wikipedia. Siawase (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems as a database of primary sources. Not of much use in my opinion. We should rely on secondary sources. Cinadon36 16:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Northern Transmissions

All I know is this publication was apparently involved in some way in some spamming a decade ago (here's the spam report and two subsequent discussions which vaguely explain what happened). The site has been blacklisted ever since despite a number of requests to allow it back on the site. So far as I can tell it seems like a decent source for independent music coverage, and may be valuable specifically for Canadian music per one of those requests. Their contact page (northerntransmissions.com/contact/) names their editor (confirmed on their YouTube channel's about page), and there are a number of writers contributing to the site including some who've contributed to notable publications such as:

Stephan Boissonneault - Wired UK

Leslie Ken Chu - Exclaim!

Sam Franzini - Flaunt, The Line of Best Fit, Atwood Magazine, Our Culture Mag

Tom Williams - The Line of Best Fit, Gigwise, Beats Per Minute

and that's just from digging through the last month of reviews. In my experience, this looks like the kinda list I'd expect to see from an RS. Per the latter of the two discussions I linked above, there's at least one editor who sounds like they'd consider removing this from the blacklist if it showed sufficient reliability. Any thoughts on whether that's the case and it should be removed would be appreciated. This is, of course, assuming there haven't been any other incidents involving this site that I'm unaware of. QuietHere (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Tagging User:JzG as they're in one of those discussions saying unlisting this could be justified with evidence of sufficient reliability. QuietHere (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Heritage Auctions

Would item descriptions on Heritage Auctions be a reliable source? Whether there's an existing portrait of Margaret Taylor seems to have been a subject of historical debate since her death, but commons:Category:Margaret Taylor has five such portraits. It seems that two of them (and much of the history of the topic on her article) are based on these pages at Heritage Auctions: Margaret Taylor: Ninth-Plate Daguerreotype of the First Lady and First Lady Margaret Taylor Ambrotype. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've used some of Heritage Auctions listing information for List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction. I think it's fine for basic factual information, but for contentious claims then I think it's questionable, as the information is ultimately promotional. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Vedantu

I do not see this online tutoring site from India in the Perennial sources list, nor do I get any hits when searching this notice board, although Vedantu does have an article here.
It seems like a good source in general (not crowd sourced, written by educators, etc.) but thought I'd check here first.
I'm evaluating using [53]https://www.vedantu.com/physics/what-is-zero-gravity and in particular the statement

"Weightlessness is defined as the complete or near-complete absence of the sensation of weight. It is the state in which the apparent gravity effect is zero. This is also termed zero-G, and it occurs in the absence of any contact force is not the absence of gravity..."

I'm currently working on
g force. Mr. Swordfish (talk
) 23:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

This site is a tutoring service for elementary and secondary level students. If we were to consider it to be functionally equivalent to textbooks at those academic levels, it is not a source to be used here. University level textbooks can often be used, though they are usually considered to be tertiary sources. See
Banks Irk (talk
) 02:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply.

Reading the policy at Wikipedia:No_original_research#Tertiary, I didn't get the sense that high-school level textbooks were not considered sufficiently reliable, but I think that's a reasonable interpretation of the policy (and a reasonably policy as well). Perhaps policy should be clarified. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOR all mention university-level textbooks as reliable sources. I wouldn't consider high-school level textbooks to be prima facie unreliable, but they're certainly not the best sources, and I can't think of many claims I would expect to be in a high school textbook which are true but aren't easily supportable by a better source. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk
) 15:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should consider this equivalent to high school books either. Tutoring websites like this aggregate material and they will have a lower standard for editorial oversight relative to a publication of a high school textbook. One more thing to note is that these are businesses that do have higher quality (i.e high school or college equivalent) notes, videos and such but they push them behind paywalls, subscription access classes, etc. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Not to get all argumentative or wiki-lawlerly here, but while those help pages mention university-level textbooks as reliable sources, they don't say anything about lower level textbooks, and four of the five mentions of "textbook" in
WP:NOR
use the word "textbook" without qualification.

So, I'd agree that high school textbooks should not be prima facie unreliable, and that there is often a better source. But sometimes the lower level text contains simpler language that makes for a more readable quote in the inline citation, especially in the introductory sections of an article; for instance, the quote above from Vedantu is the simplest, most straightforward definition I've found on the web, which is why I wanted to use it. But I understand the objections and used the definition from britanica.com instead. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_390&oldid=1125654226"

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]