Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 401

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.

Sometimes, even generally reliable newspapers use bylines like "News desk" or "Web desk", etc. Does it mean the published content is prepared by several staff members, or is it used to mask sponsored or paid content? Are such articles/reports reliable? Insight 3 (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

In a typical respectable publication, that just means an article that was assembled by multiple authors, without a byline. Wouldn't assume it was sponsored or paid content, which (again, in a legit publication) should be explicitly flagged as such). BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Insight 3 Both. Some reliable sources like The Economist uses no byline, read [1]. PR agencies try to use this to get organic coverage (loophole): "A byline is a where the writer of an article is credited. In PR, bylines are an opportunity for clients to get organic media exposure through writing a piece in a magazine or newspaper, pulling from their industry experience and building the company’s platform in the process." [2] So just trust highly reliable sources won't damage their reputation by masking the paid content under "news desk" byline. 175.107.236.127 (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the above: "News desk" or similar bylines may also indicate syndicated content, e.g., from the Associated Press. Another very common use case is news briefs (assembled by staff, generally from press releases, often has a headline indicating "briefs," "news in brief," etc.) These often appear as "news desk," etc. because the copy/layout desk or online editor assembles them, rather than the reporting desk. Or -- more often than you'd think -- articles may appear under "news desk" or "web desk" when the newspaper website has not, for whatever reason, properly included the byline in the CMS, or properly transferred the byline from an old CMS to a new one, or the paper has been purchased by some other company that has not maintained its website. In these cases sometimes the actual byline appears in article text, and sometimes it doesn't and you have to check the print version to see who actually wrote it. In short, it's complicated, but without other evidence there's no reason to think these aren't reliable. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I've looked into the discussions linked in

Here's the exact comment originally cited in Technoblade: https://www.reddit.com/r/Technoblade/comments/yzjnwm/comment/ix278au. For the time being, I've enclosed the relevant claim and this citation in an invisible comment so that the content's preserved within the article for now.

The authenticity of u/MrTechnodad (father of Technoblade and author of the Reddit comment in question) is a bit unorthodox compared to Reddit accounts associated with verified AMAs. Instead of using (or rather, due to the lack of) a previously verified social media handle to establish authenticity, u/MrTechnodad published a comment under Technoblade’s Reddit account (u/Technothereddit). This alone calls item number 4 of WP:ABOUTSELF into question, as well as the first sentence of WP:BLPSPS. The fact that the comment was made by someone from Technoblade's immediate family calls item number 2 of WP:ABOUTSELF into question solely on the basis that the comment wasn't written by Technoblade himself (for obvious reasons).

I'm not adding this topic to imply that u/MrTechnodad is a fraud—rather, I'm here to ask about a potential edge case even after applying as many relevant Wikipedia policies as possible.

I am most likely overthinking this, so I need a fresh pair of eyes on this whenever possible. Thanks in advance. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 04:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What information is the father's reddit account proposed to be used for? Just that the son attended UIowa? AFAICT that's not an important detail, so if the usability of the source for it is this low, I'd say just leave it out, nothing important is lost by

WP:ABOUTSELF. -sche (talk

) 08:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Which of the following best describes Scientific Reports?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Previous discussions: [3].Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 2 Whether or not a paper from SciRep should be used is very field and author dependent. While undoubtedly a lot of good and valid research is published there, so is a lot of dubious stuff, more so than other journals in the SpringerNature portfolio. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: many scholarly articles should be given little weight on Wikipedia anyways, regardless of publisher or reliability, as primary sources (
  WP:PSTS). A primary article that describes a new species, like this one, is reliable enough to show the species has been validly published, even if subsequent taxonomists disagree or reclassify it. But a research paper in the same journal that seeks to upend an existing classification scheme of a family or phylum based on a newly sequenced blip of RNA should be weighted accordingly with other sources. --Animalparty! (talk
  ) 23:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3, though some things published there may be usable via
  WP:RSP has evolved into could mean that a "yellow" rating there would lead to people arguing that publication there sometimes lends reputability, or that it is disputed whether it lends inherent reliability. It never does, not ever, which means that option 3 is the best choice with the caveat that things by established experts can be used as normal via SELFPUB (true in general for things published in non-RSes) - essentially, anyone who wants to use a paper from there has to start from the presumption that it is unreliable and construct a SELFPUB argument otherwise on a case-by-case basis. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 04:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 Should be assessed on an article-by-article basis. Some may be useful as primary sources alongside secondary sources that themselves reference material published there, but for the most part we should not be using scientific papers without a supporting secondary source that puts the primary research into context. It's probably fine for linking in cases where we reference the material in conjunction with its discussion in secondary sources, but like ALL scientific journals, per
  WP:PRIMARY, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." --Jayron32
  13:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 Misusing primary sources is already rampant on wikipedia. The journal has a checkered history, so I agree with Aquillion that articles should basically be treated as self published. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 Primary sources like research papers should only be used with special care to begin with, and this journal fails the use-with-caution standard. Aiming for quantity indiscriminate of field is a big red flag. Peer review requires trustworthy subject-specific expert review, which is dubious when the journal as a whole disregards subject specialization. Our article Scientific Reports appears to indicate the quantity-over-quality approach bearing poor fruit. Note that this should not count against any paper published there, surely much of that work is fine. It just means publication in Scientific Reports adds little to any other publication or authority the work may otherwise have. Alsee (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I suppose given that as of 2020 SciRep was publishing 7,500-10,000 papers every year, is looking at the raw number of controversies an appropriate metric? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Other considerations apply. (Not sure this needs a RFC -- Is there really a 'perennial' need about this source ? But in any case hers is my input.) As always,
  WP:WEIGHT as being suspect for sensationalism or publicising rather than scientific note.) Cheers Markbassett (talk
  ) 06:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, deprecate: there is not enough time to evaluate the merits of this publisher's studies on a case-by-case basis, and where this does happen it usually involves protracted edit wars, cliques, drama, etc. Wikipedia's quality and user experiences improve tremendously by setting higher standards for sources. What little value that might be lost will be more than compensated for by removing the big pile of bad studies, as well as the bloat of material that just isn't notable enough to be included in a tertiary source. What has been published by Scientific Reports that was truly important or worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? - Hunan201p (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. Retractions and weak articles are happening in all scientific journals, even the best ones. That is not a proof of anything. Given the description of their editorial process [4], they have a peer review process and editorial oversight. But yes, the additional considerations must apply, as always, i.e. one should check if specific publication makes exceptional claims, contradicts general knowledge in the field, not supported by other sources, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. For me, this is a no-brainer. Scientific reports is a huge website covering a lot of ground. One cannot compare mathematics to sociology in terms of the ability of a reader literate in both to be able to validate for one's self whether something is true or not. But as always, caveat emptor applies, and in general it is nonsense to judge a book by its cover, and asking if a source is reliable is actually nonsense. CarlWesolowski (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3. Scientific reports covers a very wide range of areas but like all primary sources, WP:PRIMARY will apply. We shouldn't be analysing or interpreting sources, which is why reliable secondary sources are much more acceptable. Having said that, I think it's important to remember that context is still important (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS), and they can still be used to supplement other sources. Starlights99 (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'm not sure we have a color code for "quite frequently unreliable, but reliability can be established on a case-by-case basis in fairly standard ways". The various arguments for 2 and 3 that are currently up there seem to agree to a large extent on how the journal ought to be treated in practice; the difference is how to translate that into suitable Wikipedia jargon.
  talk
  ) 16:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Unless Sci Rep has started publishing review articles, is this more of a "people using primary sources when they shouldn't" problem? Red Fiona (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Do Not List In RSN - this seems not usable for RSP results. Unless there are a number of past instances where this was one "whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed" then by definition it does not belong in RSP. If there *are* past discussions, then they should be described by the RFC as the reason for the discussion and not as a generic search link that returns false hits on the phrase "scientific reports". In this case the generic search seems to have 4 which actually question SR, and only one case came to a conclusion which was that particular study was just that -- a first-person report of a study which did not suit the article CONTEXT of MEDRS. In WP sense, this seems -- not an entry for RSP, and utility depends on context. But really, just stop asking about every venue there is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Scientific Reports is a well respected fast publishing journal for particular types of studies. Personally I have published in it. That said it has received criticism for inadequate review in some areas. They do not publish opinion pieces and try to publish the original research of authors. Like all publications they should be used judiciously and without bias. I do not see why this has been brought up as an RFC as the way to treat publications applies to any publication. Many scientists even see Nature itself as not much more than a flashy magazine filled with titles and little content. However its impact factor keeps people publishing in it as scientists grant access depends on a high impact factor. I recommend closing this as the premise of the RFC is actually not relevant to the issues with journals. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 14:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ordinarily I’d be asking this question on the page of the article in question, which is Jack Anderson (columnist), a deceased journalist. More on why I’m asking here later. Anderson often been labeled a “Muckraker”. And if you look at that biography’s section titled Muckraker it says in Wikipedia’s voice the FBI participated in “retaliation and continual harassment” towards Anderson. My problem with this is the source is Anderson himself, a primary source. Anderson’s work product was often called into question for various reasons, one of which falls into a “Mission from God” category. Along this vein, I believe the article has other primary sourcing issues. In short, maybe it could use a review or two from anyone so inclined. Artificial Nagger (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• There a couple of references to the History Channel doc hosted by Anderson, including for this passage. It's reliable with attribution even though it's "about self", because it is not self-published. Same thing for any of his WaPo columns. And there are plenty of other sources to corroborate the particular passage here...heck, the harassment continued after his death. This really belongs back at the article talk page before bringing it here; there is no controversy or dispute that's been raised there first without a resolution.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 01:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Logically.ai is a UK startup specialising in fact-checking and other intelligence tasks. It is used as a source in a few places, but especially prominent in the articles about the websites Disclose.tv and The Exposé.

I would like to get feedback on the reliability of their non-fact checking website content, which seems to essentially come down to editorials, and using these directly as a source. The context is my deletion request for the Disclose.tv article, which currently uses their article on them as the by far most prominent source for the article's content, with the company's analysis being explicitly mentioned in almost every paragraph as other sourcing on Disclose.tv runs very thin. Even if the article were to be kept, it seems undue to me to put this much weight on their editorial and labelling.

The reason I am questioning the website's reliability is that there's no comprehensive list of staff, writers or generally an editorial team as far as I can find, with some investigative articles being attributed simply to the company. The attributed author's profile in the Disclose.tv article even leads to a 404 page.

While the company has been cited in articles by other RS (see deletion discussion), that seems mostly limited to their reports and fact-checking activities. I also find it questionable how much of that essentially comes down to PR for their services, as they're a private company.

Personally I haven't found any sources besides the ones mentioned in the deletion discussion referencing them, but this might come down to it being made a bit difficult from the company's name and most citations leaving out the ".ai".

Tagging @Isi96 SenorCar (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Reliable per
  International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry), and it has a corrections policy. Isi96 (talk
  ) 02:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Not Reliable There is nothing about this website or any search to it that inspires any confidence about its reliability. It appears to be an aspiring UK/Indian
  Banks Irk (talk
  )`
• Generally Reliable with some additional considerations. Per the points Isi96 brought up, they seem reliable for factual reporting and analysis. However, there is a blog on the website that probably shouldn't be used, since blogs usually have less editorial oversight. I don't see the editorial board, which gives me pause to call them generally reliable flat-out. I'm definitely a little weary of the fact that their website seems secondary to their consulting business. They shouldn't be used to establish notability, but I don't think that's what's happening at Disclose.tv. I would like to get feedback on the reliability of their non-fact checking website content, which seems to essentially come down to editorials, and using these directly as a source. I think you're mischaracterizing the article. It' not an editorial at all. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 14:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  The website does have a lot of investigations published with "Logically" as an author, which is what I referred to. Though admittedly after checking again I noticed that these tend to at least have the names of the researchers listed at the top of the article. SenorCar (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Their team members are located here. Isi96 (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  May I ask you how you found this? As this isn't linked anywhere on their website. Additionally, how do you find the references to them that you referred to above? As I mentioned, I wasn't able to come up with anything, which I assume is due to the company's name being very generic and most sources referring to them just as "Logically".

  Sorry for being a bit suspicious, but I noticed before that you seem to be one of the persons referencing to them as a source the most, including being one of the main authors of the company's own article. SenorCar (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  "May I ask you how you found this? As this isn't linked anywhere on their website." That page is accessible from their fact-checking page, under the Research dropdown.

  I was able to find the above references by using the site parameter in Google Search, e.g. logically site:nytimes.com.

  "Sorry for being a bit suspicious, but I noticed before that you seem to be one of the persons referencing to them as a source the most, including being one of the main authors of the company's own article." That's fine, it's not an issue. I actually encountered them as a reference in this piece from

  Coda Story. Isi96 (talk

  ) 15:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. SenorCar (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

1. https://militaryland.net/ukraine/

2. It would be used on any units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

3. In my opinion the source is trustworthy. Anyone who is familiar with the matter could take a look and compare it with sources that have already been confirmed, there should be hardly any discrepancies.

Best regards, Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

(As I had been asked on my talk page and suggested a thread here: ) My first impression is that this is a

reliable. ~ ToBeFree (talk

) 18:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That's true, but as I said previously, anyone who is experienced with the topic may have a look and compare it with sources that have already been authenticated, there should be rarely any discrepancies. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Then use those sources, as well this site may be doing. Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are not reliable sources for everything that the site claims. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

So in order to use the full potential of the site, one would have to recognize it as trustworthy. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

So, it uses unreliable sources, so why should we use it? Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes looks like a blog. Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Another dime a dozen military fan site, not reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No editorial policy found. Yet another fan blog (and ad farm) type of site. Definitely not reliable. - Amigao (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

True, it seems very skeptical, but it has also been used on the Ukrainian wikipedia, and hardly ever uses false information. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I've now also seen that User:Buckshot06 also used this source, if that helps in any way. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Military fan site, not reliable, if they quote reliable sources then use those sources. Use on a different language wiki has no bearing on if a source is reliable on enwiki. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Then that's probably the case.

Are the official Facebook pages or their official telegram channels a reliable source then?

For example: https://www.facebook.com/47brigade or https://t.me/egerbrigade Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What about several news websites quoting him?

Such as:

1: https://tvpworld.com/65487666/over-800-russian-soldiers-killed-in-past-day-ukraine-military-reports

2: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/5/ukraine-claims-battlefield-victories-during-counteroffensive

3: https://wavellroom.com/2023/02/20/vodyane-village-assault/

4: https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/06/15/russo-ukrainian-war-day-112-russia-continues-to-attack-sloviansk-ukraine-has-10-of-weapons-that-it-asked-for/

5: https://observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220328-journey-out-of-devastated-mariupol-ukraine-russia-war

6: https://subscription.ukrweekly.com/2022/06/more-weapons-pledged-for-ukraine-while-russia-makes-gains-in-the-east/

7: https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/defiant-ukrainian-armor-builder-at-saudi-trade-show-eager-to-go-into-battle/

8: https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/russia-ukraine-war-ukrainian-armed-forces-controlling-water-a-recurring-war-tactic-2297140-2022-11-14

While most aren't really good sites, it's something. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking at France24 article is just re-using a video they tweeted, I don't think it adds any credibility. The Al Jazeera article has me confused, it say Kyrylo Tymoshenko, deputy head of the president’s office and then shows at tweet from militaryland, are the two somehow connected? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the picture in Vysokopillya should be intended as a confirmation of Tymoshenko's statement. At France24 it is also intended as a confirmation of the statement that the town is destroyed. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Not only that, but TVP has cited the site multiple times. (https://tvpworld.com/65536935/live-day-319-of-russian-aggression-against-ukraine) Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek too. (https://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-russia-troops-forced-buy-equipment-armor-ukraine-reports-1750000) Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

But Newsweek specifically say according to the military blog MilitaryLand.net, sorry I didn't think there's enough to change my mind (and I'm not the only one you would need to convince). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yet another self-sourced military blog. I don't know if it's a recent thing, but the growth of articles like "Military equipment of..." has really caught my attention--and of course all those articles look to me to mostly be hobby stuff with tons and tons of primary and bloggy sourcing, in addition to pictures of guns and flags. I tried very hard to not use the word "fetishism", but that is really what it is, and it belongs on Wikia, not here. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

My edit to the Oruro Department was tagged for a deprecated source, which apparently was ElFulgor.com. I do not know much about the media landscape in Bolivia so maybe someone with familarity on the subject can help out. I could not find any discussions about this topic or an entry in the perennial sources list. Thanks for helping out.

Nevermind, the source that seems to have triggered the tag was probably worldstatesmen.org, which is used on so many pages that I did not consider it. After reading some old discussions, I can easily see why it was tagged. Will look for a better source.

ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 13:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC) edited 14:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'd say generally reliable for statements of fact within the parameters of a
  WP:NEWSORG, may not be due for opinions on topics not relating to the American Jewish community. Within the continuum of US Jewish publications, they're typically left of Tablet (magazine) and right of Jewish Currents. I haven't seen any significant differences between their English and Yiddish coverage. Most of their output is in English nowadays but they do still publish Yiddish-first articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk
  21:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  The specific article in question is this article talking about Steve Laffey's presidential bid. It isn't really a Jewish issue but rather reads like an opinion peace about his relationship with Jewish individuals, and his support for Israel. Would the article count towards being a notable source about Laffey? Scu ba (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call that an opinion piece, it's a series of anecdotes, mostly attributed to Laffey himself, with essentially no added commentary beyond assertions that this is what Laffey and his colleagues say. I wouldn't question its reliability as far as what Laffey's position on Israel and related topics is concerned, but the level of detail is definitely way higher than what would be DUE in our article. Unless other sources are drawing attention to his positions on Israel, I don't think more than a sentence or two is warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Understandable, Would it be possible to add the Forward to the

  WP:RSP list or should I just reference to this eventually archived conversation in the future? Scu ba (talk

  ) 18:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  RSP tends to insist on waiting for an RfC, which probably isn't needed here. You can point to this conversation if use of The Forward is challenged, but you'd be equally well-served by just paraphrasing there comments here. In a source reliability discussion with so few editors, no one is laying down policy as it were, we're just providing relevant information and opinions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• What makes you think it's an opinion piece? Honestly, it's more "dry" than most news articles. I'd generally agree with Rosguill (ie. the source is broadly an
  WP:RS; there's no indication that their biases taint their reliability, and that particular piece doesn't strike me as an opinion piece.) But one additional thing I'd point out is that it's based on an interview Laffey gave to Forward. It's not their commentary on him, it's "here's Laffey's views on Israel and how he is presenting himself to the Jewish community, in his own words." That's probably enough to justify a sentence or two in the section of the article discussing his views on Israel. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 07:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Okay thanks! I was just confused on the tone of the article and how it felt more informal than some of the other articles on Laffey that I've seen. Scu ba (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, mostly in agreement with Rosguill. Would say more reliable than Tablet, as the Tablet has a habit of publishing things that are obviously opinion (I mean written in the first person and saying this is what I think) as "news". nableezy - 22:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Scu ba HAMI450z (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Generally reliable, as per Rosguill etc. (Agree with Nableezy that it's more reliable than Tablet, which is also generally OK to use, and also, not least due to its long history, a better gauge than Tablet of whether something is due.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to cite shz.de in some articles, but I don't know whether it can be deemed a reliable source. Can someone confirm or deny its reliability? Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Banks Irk (talk
  ) 20:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
  • For start, I'd like to cite this article. It's about a boxing match between Wladimir Klitschko and David Haye and its impact on the boxing world. Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

    I do not see any issues (though can not access the text behind the paywall). Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  I too cannot get past the paywall. But a quick looking-over what I could see did not reveal any issues. I'd suggest assuming they are reliable unless/until proven otherwise. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  You can get past the paywall simply by registering. Worked for me at least. The paywall only restricts a certain percentage of articles, but this one shouldn't be one of them. Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There are several related discussions happening on the Lia Thomas Talk page that may benefit from additional input about the reliability of The National Desk and/or its parent company Sinclair Broadcast Group, including:

• Talk:Lia Thomas/Archive 2#Are any of these sources reliable re: locker room controversy?
• Talk:Lia Thomas/Archive 2#Riley Gaines accusations Part II

Two sources being discussed are:

• [9] (The National Desk, also published by a local ABC station KATV)
• [10] (published by a local NBC station, produced by The National Desk)

I have not found past discussions of these sources on this board. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• With regard to Sinclair Broadcast Group, sources I have found include:

Beccaynr (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this topic. She is mentioned above, but a very problematic Sinclair show is this one:

Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson

Our local ABC channel runs it, and even without much interest in politics, my wife commented: "What is this? What planet is that woman from? She sounds like a Fox News host with little connection to reality." I was rather surprised, because she rarely says much about politics. It turns out my wife is much better informed than I realized.

We need a list of such problematic shows from Sinclair. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• With regard to the first National Desk source listed above (Feb. 9 2023), the reporter writes, "Thomas, who was born male". According to the Sex assignment section of the APA Style Guide,

  "birth sex" is one of the phrases "considered disparaging by scholars in TGNC psychological research; by many individuals identifying as transgender, gender-nonconforming, or nonbinary; and by people exhibiting gender diversity. Thus, these disparaging terms should be avoided. [...] It is more appropriate to use “assigned sex” or “sex assigned at birth,” as this functionally describes the assignment of a sex term".

  The Washington Times reported in October 2017, "The Associated Press's official Stylebook [Twitter] account counseled journalists to not describe a transgender individual as having been “born” a certain sex." The GLAAD Media Reference Guide Transgender People section includes, "Avoid "Marisol was born a man." [...] An oversimplification like "born a man" invalidates the current, authentic gender of the person you're speaking about and is considered disrespectful."
• With regard to the second National Desk source listed above (Mar. 1, 2023), the reporter uses the term "biological women" to introduce a quote from a speaker who used the term "woman." I am reminded of a
  WP:POSTMIL has used the term biological male
  to describe a transgender woman athlete.

Beccaynr (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• I appreciate these style guide inputs, but I don't think those necessarily render The National Desk unreliable for the content "So-and-so complained about sharing a locker room with this person". The core question here is
  WP:RSP). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}
  ) 14:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have examples of 'many green

  WP:POSTMIL, so from my view, that does not seem 'slightly' outdated, and instead more like an editorial decision that raises general concerns about the news outlet and specific concerns about the sources considered here. Beccaynr (talk

  ) 17:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Here are several GREL outlets that say "born male" when referring to trans persons (after 2017):
  Politico (15 Feb 2023) · CNN (July 2021) · ESPN (6 July 2022) · BBC News (22 December 2021) · Scientific Reports (26 January 2021) · The Texas Standard (11 December 2018) · Medical News Today (11 Aug 2022) · SkyNews (UK) (2 May 2021) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  These sources appear to be different than the TND reporters using the terminology: The Politico reporter attributes 'born male' to others; CNN uses "born with DSD traits" and "sex they were assigned at birth"; ESPN attributes to British Triathlon; BBC attributes to rumors; Scientific Reports uses "assigned to them at birth"; Texas Standard quotes its interviewee: "changing my sex from my assigned sex" and later writes 'he was born male'; Medical News Today: "a person who was assigned female at birth (AFAB) but identifies as a man may refer to themselves as a “transgender” man"; Sky News quoting Caitlin Jenner also using other terms identified above as disparaging (e.g. "biological boys"). With the exception of the Texas Standard, which may be paraphrasing in an article based on the statements of the subject, it does not appear 'born male' or 'biological man/woman' are used by the reporters. Beccaynr (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  emphatic disagree. These sources use "born male" in passages not attributed:

• CNN: But there is increasingly vocal pushback from parts of the medical community, parents and intersex people themselves, saying that being intersex isn’t a medical “problem” to be “solved” any more so than being born male or female is one
• ESPN: The governing body announced Wednesday there would be two categories for athletes over the age of 12: "female" for those who are born female, and "open" for men and those who are born male, including transgender and nonbinary people.
• BBC: Brigitte Macron is set to take legal action over an internet conspiracy theory that she is a transgender woman and was born male.
• Scientific Reports research article: Which of these situations do you most closely relate to? (1 I was born male, but I have felt female since childhood; 2  I was born female, but I have felt male since childhood; 3  I was born male and I feel comfortable with my body; 4  I was born female, and I feel comfortable with my body)
• Texas Standard: He then learned that he was born with a condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome, in his case, he was born male but his body did not produce testosterone. He began living as a male again by injecting testosterone on a weekly basis.
• Medical News Today: People who are born male and living as men cannot get pregnant. A transgender man or nonbinary person may be able to, however.
• SkyNews: The Florida legislature passed laws this week that would restrict entry to girls' sports teams to those who were born female.

If these reporters wanted to attribute such things, they would have placed them inside the quotations or in more obvious paraphrasing. Instead, they placed them in the "omniscient voice" of the articles themselves. Getting it right at one place in the article does not overcome getting it wrong elsewhere in the article. You are stating above that getting it wrong in one place should render a source unreliable. So here are reliable sources that also, in some places, got it wrong. We should not hold our sources to such a high standard selectively based on our disagreement with their politics. And, moreover, we never use "style" as a reasoning for rendering a source unreliable. Only editorial policy and fact checking. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Attribution is not always in quotes - for example, if the Florida legislature, British Triathlon, or internet conspiracy theory are using 'born female' or 'born male', the outlets report that. And scientific reporting that also use the accepted language is a different type of report than the TND. But I don't think this discussion is helped by us going round-and-round on this tangent. We've added sources and our perpectives, and other participants can review and make their own judgments. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC) add "tangent" to clarify comment, per off-topic discussion below. Beccaynr (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think that if they're reporting that someone was "born a man", we should definitely cast doubt on their accuracy, as a "man" is an adult male human, and surely such a birth would've made news separately. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't actually know that TND said "born a man". They said, Thomas, who was born male, sparked global controversy when she joined UPenn's women's swimming team in 2021 following hormone replacement therapy. Which is not exactly "assigned male at birth (AMAB)" (the preferred language to the best of my knowledge), but it's close. I think if we're quibbling about that then it's too close of reading trying to invalidate a source for nit-picky reasons imo. I agree the male-vs-man thing is worth discussing, but they didn't actually commit that particular error. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think we're quibbling about male-vs-man, because the sources cited above focus on e.g. "The Associated Press's official Stylebook [Twitter] account counseled journalists to not describe a transgender individual as having been “born” a certain sex", which appears to plainly include the TND 'born male', i.e. "birth sex" phrasing. Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Then see above multiple news outlets which say "born (sex)" when describing Trans persons. I'm all for using inclusive and updated language wherever possible when we write the encyclopedia, but it's absurd to use standards like this to disqualify outlets when tons of GREL outlets are apparently making that mistake. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that the MOS criticisms are irrelevant to whether a source is reliable or not. There is no question that Sinclair has a right editorial bias and that some of its past news policies and outlets have be extensively criticized, some compared to Breitbart. The Wikipedia article on National Desk contains considerable discussion of criticism from Media Matters. On the other hand, Media Bias/Fact Check[11] acknowledges the bias and urges caution as a result but rates them "High" for factual reporting, in part on the basis that they are well sourced and have a clean fact-check record. It also notes that the National Desk website lacks transparency in failing to have an "about us" page - so there's no description of its editorial or fact-checking policies. My thought is that I don't see much evidence beyond those two positions that there has been a lot of assessment of its reliability and little citation of its stories by unrelated third party reliable sources. It is is too recent to have developed a solid reputation on which to say that it is generally reliable or unreliable as a rule. Citations should be handled on a case-by-case basis.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 16:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  According to the

  WP:POSTMIL) when also reporting on transgender athletes. Beccaynr (talk

  ) 16:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you think Sinclair's history is enough to deprecate or downgrade every single outlet they have ever owned or will own? Because that's something like 100+ news markets covering 72% of US household's local news stations. Many of which report factual things like...the weather, outcomes of political races, local interest stories, etc. I agree with you and Banks that the political bias of SInclair is patently obvious. But I don't think the history of Sinclair should be so cleanly and carelessly applied to everything they have ever touched like that.

  On the other hand, I agree there are some very troubling inaccuracies as described in The National Desk § Format that are extremely relevant to this discussion! I would have asked you to describe these from the beginning of this post! That's what we should have been talking about the whole time! On the basis of those inaccuracies and misinformation instances, I would say TND should be "Category 2" aka "additional considerations apply" and there should be caution when using TND to verify content about American politics and science, especially from a conservative bent. Not Category 3 (generally unreliable) mind you, because if their attempt is to be "commentary-free" as described in that section, then they can still probably be used for "uncontroversial" topics. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the question. Sinclair has a deserved reputation for bias and inaccuracy in many other outlets that predate National Desk, but rather like the perennial debates over the news vs opinion/entertainment sides of other organizations, I can't conclude that everything it puts out is necessarily unreliable. National Desk has not yet developed a reputation for accuracy or inaccuracy in factual reporting as far as I can tell. RSP says Media Matters is only marginally reliable, and MB/FC is unreliable, but no other solid, third party reliable sources appear to have weighed in. So where does that leave us? That's why I suggest taking use of it as a source on a case-by-case basis, and not make a blanket judgment at this point in time.

  Banks Irk (talk

  ) 17:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  From my view, we are not trying to make an RFC determination about the outlets generally, but the background information seems relevant to assessing the specific sources proposed to support politically-related

  WP:MEDIAMATTERS on a case-by-case basis per RSP, but have not yet had the opportunity. I instead started with the Sinclair Broadcast Group, and then found indications in the specific sources listed above that from my view, seem similar to concerns raised by reliable sources about SBG. Beccaynr (talk

  ) 17:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think in this particular instance, it is permissible to verify the factual statement "so-and-so expressed concerns to the media about being forced to view so-and-so's genitalia in shared locker rooms at inter-collegiate swim meets" to local outlets and others who reprinted the TND report. It's a factual statement, that The National Desk reported, incontrovertibly, accurately. There's no actual question as to whether the complaint happened. We know it did. If the question is: "Is this DUE?" then the proper noticeboard would be

  WP:NPOVN. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

  ) 19:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  If we proceed from the lightest caution of "there should be caution when using TND to verify content about American politics and science", then these do not appear to be reliable sources for these contentious, politically-related

  WP:NPOV, it would help to resolve source reliability issues (to help determine BLP compliance, balance, neutrality, and weight), which is why I opened the discussion here. Beccaynr (talk

  ) 20:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  What crime is being alleged here? Why would

  WP:BLPCRIME apply at all? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

  ) 20:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have explained in the article Talk discussions, including in an in-depth response to your question today [12]. Gaines explains in her statements about how she believes she has been subject to criminal conduct. A plain reading of the headline also seems to imply alleged criminality. So I think it is best to keep focused on whether these sources are reliable for contentious politically-related statements about a living person that include allegations of criminal conduct, and/or allegations about personal medical information that also requires much better sourcing. Beccaynr (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  While I personally think there are transphobic aspects to some of the statements made by Gaines, when looking at her immediate complaint (wrong genitals in the wrong place), there are, seen from a general societal POV, issues of what are seen as inappropriate conduct related to public display of genitals, that have nothing to do with identity as transgender, and that can have legal consequences. If a man or woman (in the sense of sex assigned at birth, with intact male or female genitalia), regardless of their sexual preference (hetero or LGBTQ) or transgender self-identity, changes their clothes in a gym shower dressing room reserved for their "sex assigned at birth" (only dicks or only vaginas), there will be no controversy, but if one of them does so in such a room for the "opposite sex" (to use common terminology), there will be immediate controversy, possibly with the police being called. That is the immediate complaint made by Gaines, and that part of the claim has nothing to do with the fact that Thomas is transgender. Gaines would have made the same complaint if any other person with male genitalia had exposed themselves in front of her in the changing room. So we need to separate the two issues.

  The issues above are related to political correctness and sensitivity to the rights, feelings, and respect for what are seen as proper terminology in the LGBTQ and transgender communities. Unlike conservatives, progressives try to keep up, but it isn't always easy, and it is the nature of the beast that there will always be a time lag. Just because a person uses the "wrong terminology" does not equate to them being homophobic or transphobic. That's why we need to be careful with describing the immediate "exposed genitals" complaint as transphobic. Other statements made by her? Quite possibly, but not this one. A totally bland mention of the complaint without identifying the fact it was about the "wrong genitals in the wrong room" issue leaves the impression that the complaint must have been transphobic, and that is a clear BLP violation against Gaines.

  Next we come to the subject of this thread. Is a source automatically an unreliable source because it sometimes uses politically incorrect terminology? No. Editors can easily choose to use the most advanced and "proper" terminology here when creating content, regardless of the exact terms in the source. We do try to be sensitive when writing content, but editors who have more advanced understandings of the latest changes in terminology must be patient with their fellow editors who aren't "up to date" and AGF. With sources, we can expect that conservative sources are going to be resistant to change and changes in terminology, without it affecting the general reliability of their factual reporting. Their terminology just reveals their bias (a bit backward in the eyes of us progressives). Bias alone does not equate to "not a RS". User:Shibbolethink seems to understand some of what I'm saying. Some other editors have been so unpleasant to me that I feel like I'm being treated as the enemy, even though I will always defend all LGBTQ and transgender rights and the laws that defend them. I'm an old guy who is trying to keep up and it's not easy. That may explain why I no longer dare to comment at the Lia Thomas article talk page. It's a minefield where a single wrong word leads to immediate attacks and bad faith accusations. I'm sick of that.

  So here, let's at least not use the "it's politically incorrect" argument to diss Sinclair. No, there are other, much better reasons to do that. They are Fox News lite, and not far behind. Like Fox, they tend to push falsehoods and conspiracy theories. For those reasons, they should not be considered a RS, but that does not mean every station they own is therefore an unreliable source. It is only the very limited Sinclair content that is unreliable, and it really is only a tiny amount, usually clearly identified as Sinclair commentary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC) (pinged User:Shibbolethink -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  From my view, our own personal or political feelings are not helpful for assessing whether or not a source is reliable. I cited a series of sources to identify a potential concern about the use of language in the TND sources brought to this board, because these TND sources have been raised as support for the

  WP:BLPGOSSIP

  content proposed to be added to the article. So far, sources added to this board are about the parent company Sinclair Broadcast Group, which appears to have a documented history of inaccuracy and bias, as well as sources (the AP citing scholars, etc) that raise a concern that the way certain language is used by the TND in two articles about transgender people indicates that these are not suitable sources for politically-related contentious information about a living transgender person.

  To the extent that an RSP greenlit, generally reliable source clearly uses its own reporting voice in a way that disparages transgender people, I can see how that might also not be a suitable source to support a similarly contentious

  WP:BLPGOSSIP content. Beccaynr (talk

  ) 03:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Let's get back to basics. The relevant policy is
  WP:NEWSORG. Do these organizations have a layer of editorial control? Do they correct their errors? Are the particular sources news or opinion? Those are the relevant questions here. Adoring nanny (talk
  ) 03:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  The local stations are both marked with a copyright 2023 Sinclair Broadcast Group in the lower right side of their websites, and TND appears to be a SBG production; according to the sources about SBG listed at the top of this thread, the

  WP:QUESTIONABLE also says, Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes [...] persons living or dead. By contrast, The Patriot-News reporting on the same news offers context about Gaines and her current political advocacy campaign, clearly identifies what Gaines says as an allegation, places quotes around the phrase "male genitalia", and appears to be an established and well-regarded news source. Beccaynr (talk

  ) 05:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  @

  WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Thank you — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

  ) 20:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Shibbolethink, when I made my comment above, I was referring to what seemed to me like us potentially continuing to go round-and-round on one tangential issue, not the ongoing larger discussion. I apologize for not making this point more clear, because I did not intend to encourage limitation on a full discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• I started reviewing Media Matters sources that discuss The National Desk:

• A year of misinformation on Sinclair's morning show The National Desk (Media Matters, Jan. 19, 2022) - this source says "local TV audiences are regularly exposed to conservative misinformation from right-wing pundits, Republican-aligned industry front groups, and even a representative of an anti-immigration hate group", "including segments from anti-vaccine activist Sharyl Attkisson’s weekly Full Measure program", "has repeatedly aired misinformation on COVID-19 and promoted opponents of vaccination", "been a friendly home for right-wing activists who oppose teaching children about racism and its history", etc. Then there is a list of examples, starting with examples of COVID-19 misinformation (which includes one documented rebuttal), then immigration, the economy, education, and "Platforming pro-insurrection Republican lawmakers and lying about Democrats’ efforts to protect voting rights" (includes an interview with Larry Klayman).
• Sinclair has repeatedly turned to a former Trump immigration official who defended family separation for commentary (Media Matters, Feb. 12, 2021) - this source includes an overview of past statements by the former official Mark Morgan, with references that include other news outlets, and states since 2021, appearances by Morgan include "national news packages -- which typically air on dozens of Sinclair stations each time -- and on Sinclair’s morning news program The National Desk, which airs on 68 Sinclair stations." Then there are a list of examples, including a news package quoting Morgan for what is characterized as "a right-wing dog whistle Republicans use to fearmonger about immigration", and a news package quoting Morgan for what is characterized as "fearmongering about a migrant caravan possibly containing people infected with COVID-19, even though it’s unlikely it will make it to the U.S. border."

I encourage everyone to review these and other available sources as well; it may be a bit before I can refocus on the review. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Media Matters is an unreliable source. Their "sources that discuss The National Desk" are worthless. Maine 🦞 12:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

According to the

attributed. From my view, it may be helpful to sift these sources to examine fact-based examples of inaccuracy and/or bias in TND, or to generally get a better sense of how SBG relates to TND. Beccaynr (talk

) 15:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

MMFA does a lot of homework that's useful for source evaluations. To actually look at

WP:WEIGHT isn't an issue, and we can freely use partisan reliable sources to the extent they're helpful. — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 16:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm familiar with Sinclair, but don't have experience with ND, so did what I always do with a new source: look at what's currently there. I pulled up two articles ripe for exercises of bias and took a look.
  The first is about an LGBTQ law vetoed in Kentucky. It's an AP article, so perhaps not a great example, but those aren't immune from being skewed by partisan sources. In this case, I don't see any evidence of that. No sign of problems.
  The other is about reparations in San Francisco. Here there are subtle problems. Mainly, Under that plan, Black residents of the city would receive a one-time payment of $5 million, complete and full forgiveness of their personal debt, an annual income of $97,000 and the ability to buy a home within San Francisco city limits for just $1. - This is almost identical to the way the AP wrote about it, but with two key differences. First, ND has changed "$5 million to every eligible Black adult" to "Black residents of the city would receive a one-time payment of $5 million" (everyone, not just those eligible). More problematic, however, is that the AP continued These were some of the more than 100 recommendations made... and Tuesday’s unanimous expressions of support for reparations by the board do not mean all the recommendations will ultimately be adopted, as the body can vote to approve, reject or change any or all of them. But ND omitted that basic information. In other words, according to the ND, the board approved $5 million per person, etc., but it hasn't actually done that.
  This is, of course, a sample size of two with one that doesn't have problems and one that's misleading, but that certainly indicates there's something worth exploring here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  The article opens As San Francisco mulls giving qualifying Black citizens millions of dollars in reparations, which seems pretty clear that it's a matter under consideration. That said, I'm confused by the later sentence The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is expected to implement the committee's recommendations at its next meeting on potential reparations on Sept. 19. Expected by whom, and how would they know that? Although a single article should not in and of itself be disqualifying, I do find this part concerning. Adoring nanny (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no shortage of evidence (including above) that they're biased (which is, of course, distinct from the question of whether they're reliable or not), and that their bias skews their reporting of political topics. We may need more evidence of how other RS view their coverage of general topics, and ideally how often they make (and how often they correct) factual errors there, before we can really judge whether they're reliable or unreliable for general topics, but given the issues above and in the absence of evidence showing them to be regarded by other RS as reliable, I wouldn't rely on them as a source for controversial claims (like the ones which prompted this discussion), just as (in the absence of evidence showing them to be regarded by other RS as generally unreliable) I wouldn't see a reason to doubt them as a source for uncontroversial claims (that the Lakers won such-and-such game, etc). -sche (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Baaz News is a substack-hosted website whose About page describes it as "home to opinions, ideas, and original reporting for the Sikh and Punjabi diaspora."

There is some controversy regarding use of a Baaz News report in the article about

• The "about us" page indicates that it solicits articles from third party sources, and has a small staff to review them before publishing. It characterizes these submissions as ranging from letters to opinion pieces to "original reporting". Although it labeled this particular article as "original reporting", it is authored by an attorney and spokesperson for the WSO of Canada advocacy group. The article itself is therefore similar to an op-ed; it might be used as a source for the author's opinion (assuming that the author is notable) but not for reporting facts. An article in Vice[13] from last February states that the person who runs Baaz News is a board member of the WSO Canada (although I do not see him so listed on the WSO Canada website). See also this profile of its founder.[14] Under all the circumstances, I am inclined to characterize Baaz News as being the publication of an advocacy group because of the apparent connection between its publisher and WSO Canada, rather than as a reliable news organization.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 20:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  cc @

  ThethPunjabi @Dilpreet Singh Mixmon (talk

  ) 19:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @

  talk

  ) 19:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sure but for that start a new RSN for that. This one is for Baaz Mixmon (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Baaz has reliably and accurately broken stories and would pass
  WP:USEBYOTHERS based on Canadian media treatment (e.g. CTV News [15], La Presse [16], Toronto Star [17], Vice News [18], and others [19][20]. Of course it will have some inherent bias, but it seems generally reliable. Though of course the rule of using better sources if available would apply. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions}
  13:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Unreliable source pro-
  Capitals00 (talk
  ) 13:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• "Baaz News" is only a substack newsletter, it calls radical Khalistani Amritpal Singh "bhai" (Brother) and doesn't report on any act of vandalism or violence by pro-khalistani group (which is its main topic of coverage). Its co-founder has also openly called for the vandalism of Wikipedia pages (If he is that interested in Wikipedia, he may just publish any random stuff and push for its inclusion in Wikipedia pages).

Mixmon (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Is TaxProf Blog reliable for coverage of issues related to U.S. tax law, policy, and similar matters? Chetsford (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPS

probably applies 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. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

If the blog has no editorial system then it is probably a SPS by an expert usable for non-

WP:RS. But without looking into the source more I'd assume it's a SPS. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk

) 14:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.website.com 103.116.116.70 (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What claims are you using this website for?

talk

) 15:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Website.com isn't a source, it is just a website builder that someone can use to create a website, like WIX or GoDaddy or SquareSpace. The website they create using it may or may not be a reliable source. Again, what is the article, the text and the reference that you are interested in?
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 16:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I was going to update a bio. [21] is the only source I have for this subject. Is it an RS?-

• Not sure what it is in that particular article would be used as a reference in a BLP, but bottom line, the site is reliable for financial/business news. Although it originally started over a decade ago as a blog in a basement, it now has a professional reporting and editorial staff, and is widely cited in other reliable sources.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 19:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• That one is a little tricky. While there is solid RS material on that site, it should be clearly attributed to their direct staff or editors. Benzinga runs both paid press releases and "guest posting" (similar to Forbes Contributor Blogs). The press releases are identified in the URL and attributed to the usual marketing/PR/SEO firms. The guest posting seems to be identified to "contributors", and has an "advertising disclaimer" in the header which notes "This post contains sponsored advertising content." I would not use any of contributor guest posts or the PR material; it's just a blog-like pass-through and advertised heavily on scam SEO sites. I wish they would not mix that in with the normal content. Sam Kuru (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

In concur in Kuru's observations.

Banks Irk (talk

) 21:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Recently, the deprecated source Breitbart has been routinely releasing exclusive surveys from the well-respected pollster Meganalisis. To my knowledge, Meganalisis has generally been considered to be a reliable source and is frequently quoted on a multitude of Wikipedia articles. Yet they're now running exclusive surveys from a source that has been judged deprecated by Wikipedia editors. (Including on same-sex marriage, abortion, and several other issues.) I wanted to use the data to update this template. Yet I'm deeply uncertain about how I should proceed in this.

It appears that these sorts of exclusives between them and Breitbart are now a regular thing. Generally, I'd state that Breitbart links are inherently unreliable and should almost no be used per consensus... but this feels like a time it might apply. The pollster who provided the data is considered to be a reliable source from my understanding, is frequently quoted for data on Venezuela on here, and is frequently cited. Is there a general agreement on what to do in situations like this?

If a reliable source starts posting information on a deprecated source. What are editors supposed to do? How are we supposed to cite this?

Use their Twitter directly? I don't know if there's an agreement on what to do here.

Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The original post on Breitbart can be found through the South Florida Gay News link. (Because Breitbart is deprecated I can't directly link it.) Or you can just look up "Polling Shows Abortion, Gay Marriage Deeply Unpopular in Socialist Venezuela". Their Twitter post on showing the data is here. South Florida Gay News references it. But the full dataset isn't on the website - but rather on Breitbart.

Neither option seems better than the others - and referencing one of the three presents serious problems. (As well as not updating the template data to the new information)

Thoughts? KlayCax (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I asked @Kwamikagami: and they thought it would be a matter best addressed here - rather than me adding it unilaterally to the template. KlayCax (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI - you absolutely can link to a deprecated source on a talk page or noticeboard. Being deprecated does is NOT the same as an outright ban… and linking for the purpose of discussion is appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the clarification.

The link is here: https://www. breitbart.com/latin-america/2023/02/27/exclusive-polling-shows-abortion-gay-marriage-deeply-unpopular-socialist-venezuela/

It kept getting blocked by the filter. KlayCax (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a weird one. Can we trust Breitbart to accurately -- and completely -- report the polling data? Garbage in, garbage out -- but sometimes even with good data in, we get garbage out. I'm not saying we shouldn't use this though. — kwami (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

First big question: Why are you saying Meganalisis is reliable? What's the evidence for that? I'm not saying they're not, but I'm curious why you're saying they are. As far as I can tell, Meganalisis is a private, for-profit research firm. As opposed to an entity like the Pew Research Center, which is funded through a nonprofit with a public interest mission, Meganalisis conducts research for specific client needs, right? It's run by this guy, who seems to be some ideological points to make that are quite compatible with Breitbart, rather than some neutral researcher. Since Breitbart is saying the research is exclusive, we can probably assume they're commissioning the surveys, and thus have total control over what does/doesn't get reported and how it's presented. Since the research doesn't undergo peer review (and absent overwhelming evidence of a reputation for things like methodological rigor), we have to rely on whomever is publishing the research to do the due diligence of evaluating the work, and we know that we cannot rely on Breitbart to do that. In sum, unless there's an awful lot of evidence otherwise, Do not use at all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

First big question: Why are you saying Meganalisis is reliable? Because reliable sources routinely cite their polling numbers in articles as authoritative and (at least relatively) accurate. Additionally, polling by Meganalisis is widely cited in a multitude of Wikipedia articles surrounding Venezuela. (Per search)

who seems to be some ideological points to make that are quite compatible with Breitbart, rather than some neutral researcher. Right. That's a concern I have as well. But Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Civiqs/Daily Kos, Public Religion Research Institute, et al. have all expressed opinions as well - and they were deemed reliable. I'm not sure where the line is here.

If Meganalisis isn't reliable, whole articles need to be revised significantly. KlayCax (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should look at those other articles and see how the information sourced to Meganalisis there compares to what other sources say; it certainly wouldn't hurt to check. But whether Meganalisis is itself reliable is of secondary concern, I think. Compare how if an outlet is very unreliable, we don't even use it as source for "in an interview with our outlet, X said Y", because (as Kwami says) we can't trust them to be telling the whole truth about what X said or, in this case, what a poll showed. (If reliable sources report on the fact that that the outlet said that X said Y, or report that Breitbart said that a Meganalisis poll showed Y, then we might say "Outlet reported that X said Y", citing the RS and not [only] Outlet; this situation came up with regard to

Talk:Killing of Brianna Ghey, for example.) -sche (talk

) 08:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Three uses isn't "routinely"; and a Google News search suggests that that it has very little usage or coverage overall. All three are just passing mentions of their polls. And
  WP:RS; that is to say, I would generally object to citing them directly for anything remotely controversial or exceptional due to their lack of a clear reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (Though, to be fair, I generally dislike citing pollsters directly in any case.) --Aquillion (talk
  ) 07:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't trust deprecated sources if they happen to say some accurate things. Even if they quote someone, we can't trust the quote. Even if the quote is accurate, we can't trust the context. That Breitbart hired an ordinary polling organisation does not mean we should trust Breitbart's contextualisation or presentation. Because it's a source we have strong reason to distrust and that we don't use in Wikipedia, going so far as to denylist the link. If the claims aren't in an RS, don't use them - David Gerard (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is why I am wary of deprecation as a concept… there are several ways to look at a situation like this:

1. The first is to say “If this heretofore reliable pollster is being used exclusively by a deprecated source, then we need to question whether the pollster is as reliable as we thought”
2. The second is to say “if this reliable pollster is being used exclusively by a deprecated source, then we need to re-examine whether that source should be deprecated”. (Is it possible that the use of a reliable pollster is an indication that the heretofore deprecated source has changed its editorial practices?)
3. And the third is to say: “The deprecation is still generally valid, BUT the reputation of the pollster is strong enough to make an exception to the deprecation in this specific case.”

I am not arguing for or against any of these (I don’t know either the pollster or the outlet well enough)… merely presenting the options. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax: I think you're misunderstanding when you say "Because Breitbart is deprecated I can't directly link it." Actually deprecation doesn't stop linking but the real reason you can't link Breitbart is that it's also on the spam blacklist. I proposed removing but failed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If we cannot verify the polling data because of some sort of exclusivity deal between Meganálisis and a far-right media outlet, then that effectively renders the data unusable. Breitbart's contextualization is untrustworthy. Zaathras (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Pollsters poll the questions they're paid to ask, and there are lots of ways to tilt a poll by asking leading questions. The persons paying for the polling have at least as much control (probably more) of the outcome as the pollster does. I think these exclusive polls are unusable. -

MrOllie (talk

) 14:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

For examples of this, watch congressfolk from any party in a hearing demand yes or no responses to questions that are complex or to which a yes or no response will be misleading. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say much the same, but you beat me to it. The people paying for the poll set the questions, which makes it inherently unreliable in this case. "So when did you stop beating your wife?" -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me ask a higher level question: why are we including the results of a public poll in our articles? I understand the use of polls on most election articles, and I can understand using polling when to explain , for example, unpopular gov't actions, but not just their use in any random case. --Masem (t) 15:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Very good question.

talk

) 18:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at this from the opposite point. If they're working exclusively with Breitbart in any capacity, that doesn't mean we should consider using Breitbart in certain circumstances. It means we should question whether Meganalisis is reliable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• If no reliable sources cover what they say then it probably isn't
  WP:SYNTHy ways. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 07:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Occasionally saying something true is not a reason to cite a deprecated source. Using a primary source (the polling company) would be original research. If the poll is noteworthy, reliable sources will cover it, otherwise it's not due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, citing the original primary poll might not be Original Research (OR)… that depends on what you say. For example, saying that “according to a poll by XYZ, 15% of respondents said they supported X” would not be OR. That is a descriptive statement that is verified by the Poll itself. Due weight is another issue, and IS a valid concern. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You would have to be very careful in wording exactly what the respondents are said to have supported, in exactly the same ways in which some poll operators are very careful in wording the questions they ask either to ensure a neutral outcome or to push respondents to the outcome they want to promote. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this. I feel that we use polls as primary sources too freely, especially from dubious or obscure pollsters, but I would personally prefer we avoid primary cites to even high-quality pollsters. The issue is that on eg. politics-related articles (topics that tend to attract huge amounts of polling from a wide range of pollsters approaching the subject from various angles), editors will pull out one number from a larger poll that they personally feel is significant or makes some key point, and present it (often in an extremely prominent way - sometimes by dropping it directly into the lead.) This definitely raises

WP:DUE issues (why are we pulling out that specific figure from a huge poll? Why that poll in particular? How do we know it's not an outlier compared to other polls?) and possibly OR issues (since the prominence and placement usually carries an implication of "this number means this.") It's best to rely on reliable secondary coverage, since that can tell us which parts of a poll are important and meaningful in the context of the article's subject. --Aquillion (talk

) 22:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If Breitbart published "The New York Times said Sunday that President McDemocrat drinks nothing but donkey's blood", that would be Breitbart citing a reliable source, but we still could not use it because Breitbart is generally not reliable. The fact that Breitbart here is sourcing a (potentially) reliable source that we cannot verify from the outside does not make them more reliable; it's all still information filtered through Breitbart. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This RfC has been expanded since initially opened. The proposals are now:

• Proposal 1: original research
  • Alternative to proposal 1
• Proposal 2: What can be cited to a map?
  • Proposal 2a: reliable sourcing
  • Proposal 2b: image layers
• Proposal 3: history
• Proposal 4: notability
  • Proposal 4a: Notability - Significant coverage
  • Proposal 4b: Notability - Sourced only to maps
• Proposal 5: Reliability

New proposals are marked in bold. BilledMammal (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I want to use some of their articles, namely two that were both written by Harsh Thakor:

1) https://www.counterview.net/2022/10/punjab-students-march-revives-memory-of.html

2) https://countercurrents.org/2021/07/shaheed-prithipal-singh-randhawa-made-immortal-contribution-to-student-movement/

... for writing about the history of a district located within the Indian state of Punjab. I see no past discussions on the former source but for the latter one, past discussions state countercurrents.org may vary in its status as a RS depending on the article in-question and the author of the article, as per

I'm not familiar with the first, but I'd see the second as a very weak, borderline source. It's highly partisan so might be good to use with attribution, but I don't think it actively produces disinformation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I used Amazon list of films on a Bio. It appears that Amazon Studios is using part information from IMDB and their own source. They use this to make up and provided their X-ray content. I know that Wiki does not trust IMDB but when Amazon is using part of it there own list of what movies people are in for finding movies. What is the over view on Amazon as source? Reliable or not because partly based on IMDB?

https://www.amazon.com/prime-video/actor/Faith-Wright/amzn1.dv.gti.9d994ae8-03d3-4dc0-aa4d-b15182278762/

https://www.amazon.com/prime-video/actor/Spencer-Lord/amzn1.dv.gti.f31865b4-f140-4bfc-a5d1-d177e3f9d150/ref=atv_pp_co_2

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/search/ref=atv_dp_pd_dir?phrase=Matt%20Shakman&ie=UTF8 Jsgoodrich (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• No, you cannot use Amazon as a source. This is not a close question.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 00:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The decision is at: https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-global-institute-on-sharing-all-influenza-data-v-swiss-institute-of-bioinformatics-final-award-thursday-28th-june-2012-1 , with further material here and here. A third user has challenged the use of this source. The source is being used to: confirm what decision was made, and identify the formation date and founding location of the organisation. The article in question is GISAID.

The main quote (following a request for additional sources) reads:

After a legal clash with the SIB,^[1] in which GISAID was ultimately compelled by an arbitration tribunal to pay out more than $1M,^{[2][3][4][5][6]}

(This likely has too many sources now, but answers about Jus Mundi would be helpful -- confirmation about the status of the other sources would also be useful as doubt has been cast on all. The formation date and founding location points relate to the info-box.)

Related discussions can be found at Talk:GISAID#Dispute with SIB and Talk:GISAID#Addition of relevant sourced information to Infobox. Opinions on this source would be welcome. -Tobeortobebetter (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• JusMundi is merely a search engine; it is not a reliable source. Moreover, the links in footnotes 2-5 are all primary sources. I'd drop them and stick with just refs 1 and 6.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 14:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Two follow up questions:

  - Would a PDF of a US district court judgement be better than Jus Mundi?

  - How can one prove when a company was founded if not through court documents? Aren't court documents the best one can get, rather than self-reported founding date? AncientWalrus (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Q1- No, use FSupp instead.

Q2- Not sure why one would ever use a court document for that purpose. As an aside, if a court decision said that Company X was founded on a certain date, that would actually be a secondary, not primary source. What I would actually check and use as a source is a search of the governmental department where those files were made. In most (but not all) cases, it will show a result for the formation date of the company. For example, the California Sec of State shows 1938 as the formation date of The Walt Disney Company. That is actually a secondary source.The primary source would be the formation documents of the company in the jurisdiction in which it was formed (assuming that it is the kind of entity that must file such documents under applicable law. I would normally use these sources if there were a question as to the accuracy of the company's statement regarding its formation date.

Banks Irk (talk

) 17:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful answers!

So would it be enough to simply state that the source is: "District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, File Number 263748"? Should I not provide a link to where this can be verified by an interested user?

There are two ways I could find to verify:

- Make a CorpOnline account at https://corponline.dcra.dc.gov/, then click on this link to see the file: https://corponline.dcra.dc.gov/BizEntity.aspx/ViewEntityData?entityId=2689336

- OpenCorporates has this already scraped and available at: https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_dc/EXTUID_2689336 (but I presume OpenCorporates is not a reliable source?)

My feeling is (maybe I'm wrong) that just stating a file number would make it hard to verify and hence it's better to provide links as well, even if they are not necessarily reliable?

Thank you for your time! AncientWalrus (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thoughts, and for confirming 1 and 6 are good to go. Jus Mundi is not (simply) a search engine: it also hosts judgements/decisions, like these. As you say, those are primary sources but aren't they a reliable source to what the court decided? -Tobeortobebetter (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Were this an article about the case itself,

Banks Irk (talk

) 17:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@

Banks Irk, I hope you are also feeling the sense that the two complainants above are not truly prepared to listen to community advice such as yours. They are quite skillful at barreling forward with their original designs (and agenda, unfortunately), and even discourteously take time to inform me on my User Talk page of a petty "copyright violation" notice that is based on opinion, but curiously do not inform me of bringing this source dispute to wider attention. I will add here that Jus Mundi allows uploads from the public, and the contents of the uploads are not verified by the hosting company. It can quite easily be used as a revenge platform, as it is being attempted in this situation. - AppleBsTime (talk

) 04:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I will ignore the off-topic and unfounded allegations in the preceding comment.

In the end, for the article for which this request was started, the secondary sources recommended by @

Banks Irk

were perfectly sufficient.

However, for posterity and future readers I would like to ask @AppleBsTime

Could you please provide evidence for your caim that Jus Mundi allows unverified user uploads? I was not able to find such a feature.

In contrast, in my research, Jus Mundi appears to be a trusted provider of international arbitration cases, used by reputable organizations such as International Bar Association and the International Chamber of Commerce.

This makes me think that Jus Mundi is rather trustworthy. Lawyers definitely don't want to rely on unchecked, bogus user submitted cases

See https://www.ibanet.org/article/433474e1-0d3b-41fd-9442-2fb2b6f3e623 and https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/publication-of-icc-arbitral-awards-with-jus-mundi/ AncientWalrus (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I have a query regarding this particular edit (which I reverted), the editor used youtube channel of All India Radio as source. Can it be considered reliable in this particular case? Mixmon (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source, but channels on YouTube can be. In this case this is the official YouTube channel of All India Radio (that took awhile to confirm, obviously don't take the channels word for it), which is the national broadcaster of India. All India Radio is reliable so it's YouTube channel is as well, although given tensions in India it should be used with caution in contentious topic areas. But, yes, for the specific edit it would be reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Per AD, YouTube is not a source. It hosts sources. The reliability of any video is attached only to the person or organization that posted it. --Jayron32 11:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the

• I think it is, in general, best to avoid post-2013 Newsweek for BLP-related content, given that we expect only the highest-level sourcing for
  WP:BLPs. I would find better sources for that. --Jayron32
  14:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any reason material in that article is likely to be contested or controversial Scu_ba? It feels like a relatively safe thing to use in Laffley's article, as it is an interview with Laffley himself. I'd avoid using it for a biography of one of his rivals, and it might not be reliable enough to be due in an article about the 2024 GOP candidates, but in Laffley's own article it seems safe enough. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just checking because of

WP:NEWSWEEK. This article was made after 2013. "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis." Scu ba (talk

) 11:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel very uncomfortable using

Checking the first three uses I would agree these should all be removed on

WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds. Having links in BLPs that connect subjects names, DOBs, and rough real world location just seems like a bad idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 18:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm working through them at the moment, removing the ones on biographies, though I've got to go to work in half an hour. Some are actually OK, where they're not on BLPs and they're sourcing the address of a building (i.e. Our Lady Queen of Peace Church, Braintree) although there are probably better ones. Black Kite (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think these are done now. I have left the ones where it was only used to source the address of a building. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Recently I've been cleaning up

• cardcow.com
• liveauctioneers.com
• a now deleted post by "ProudNordicGirl" on wattpad.com

As well as to poorly sourced, non-

• symbols.com (a user-contributed site from non-experts, essentially a wiki)
• flagspot.net (complete with citations to old Wikipedia articles)

Many of these were links to articles that even these sites had deleted—someone had fished them up from Archive.org.

Additionally, I've been restructuring and eliminating redundancy to the page, as well as adding new material from

Sounds great, right? Unfortunately that hasn't been the case: Every one of these changes has repeatedly been blanket reverted by @Beyond My Ken: (example: [22]), claiming such edits "do not have consensus" and that the above listed "sourcing is sufficient"—I kid you not.

But since this user appears to be especially fixated on maintaining the abysmal status quo there—unreferenced paragraphs and exceptionally poor "sources" and all—can we get some more eyes on this article? And maybe some more contributors to hunt down

Just want to point out that I have explicitly asked this editor to discuss and justify their edits on the article's talk page, but their response seems to have been to come here instead. There is currently no consensus for the editor's "clean up". Some of the work is probably worthwhile, but, in my opinion, they're using much too blunt a sword and need to focus their changes, hence the need for a consensus discussion on the article talk page, which should precede any discussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

As you should know (but seem to deliberately ignore) the

WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include disputed content. You always obfuscate what your actual objections are and keep deliberately going on about "consensus" (despite the fact that nobody has agreed with you) to distract from your lack of actual reasons to include fragrantly unreliable sources. I agree with these removals. In what circumstances would fucking WattPad ever be reliable source? Hemiauchenia (talk

) 01:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not the first time this issue has come up with this editor and this subject material. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Beyond My Ken. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• All of the above sources are self evidently unreliable. I'm shocked and amazed that anyone with the experience of BMK would blindly revert this and demand consensus; furthermore in the case of disputes,
  WP:ONUS has long established that disputed content stays out of articles until there exists clear consensus to include it. --Jayron32
  12:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• The sources that you list above are clearly unreliable, but looking at the linked edits, some of the material that you removed and BMK restored was well-sourced, for example to ADL, which is a reliable source for this subject, per multiple prior discussions here at RSN archives.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 12:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Good catch. I had missed that one. In general (as a matter of advice to the OP), it is much better to remove the sources one at a time, with an explanation for each, rather than a mass removal in a single edit. This is pragmatic; it is less likely to be challenged, and also, you're less likely to have the entire set reverted that way. As noted, the ADL source is scrupulously reliable in this context, so it should not have been removed with the other. --Jayron32 14:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This material was already covered above and redundant. We don't need two sections discussing the Nazi use of Armanen runes. It's worth noting also that the ADL is also not always reliable for this material and their entries should be checked against works from specialist scholars to ensure accuracy. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSPADL disagrees with you on that. --Jayron32

11:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And that's irrelevant when we encounter discussion from specialist scholars that indicates that an ADL entry is incorrect, such as was encountered at Black Sun (symbol). :bloodofox: (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources disagree, its not our job to decide who is right and who is wrong we provide both opinions proportionate to their coverage in WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Some sources are more appropriate than others and

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If you're not aware that both the ADL and SPLC have historically made outright false statements about this or that symbol over the years, I've got some news for you. While the ADL has cleaned up a lot of its website symbol entries over the years (and so has the SPLC), to this day the ADL still refers to the Wolfsangel as 'an ancient runic symbol'. This is unquestionably incorrect and not a matter of opinion or debate, as any scholastic runologist can tell you. :bloodofox: (talk

) 16:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If we excluded every source that was wrong one time from ever being used at Wikipedia, we'd have exactly zero sources to ever use. ADL is considered reliable. Full stop. If, in a singular instance it is shown via other scholarship that the ADL was incorrect in something, then we aren't forced to use it in that one instance. That has no bearing on general reliability. If you have an equally reliable source that disagrees with the ADL in this one instance, then cite that source alongside it, and directly attribute each source's information to each. If a preponderance of other reliable sources disagree with the ADL, such that it stands alone compared to the rest of mainstream scholarship, then use a different source. This, however, should be discussed when disputed at the level of the specific contested edit. Not as a general statement of "someone disagreed with the ADL once, and so they shouldn't be considered generally reliable". That's a silly standard to hold any source to. --Jayron32 16:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What on earth are you going on about? Nobody has made any such claim about general reliability. It's pretty obvious that the ADL is a good source for discussion of modern far-right groups but a terrible source for, say, historic runology. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You might want to check Wolfsangel, it would appear to support the assertion that the Wolfsangel is an ancient runic symbol (and if not ancient very very old). Do we need to rewrite Wolfsangel or have you maybe gone beyond your skis just a little but? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Try reading before linking. The article says: "it is sometimes mistaken as being an ancient rune due to its similarity to the "gibor rune" of the pseudo Armanen runes", which is correct. The Armanen runes were invented in the 19th century. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd read that. Do I understand correctly that your entire issue with the ADL is whether or not the 15th century is ancient history? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Obviously not, read it again. The symbol resembles a modern rune invented in an early 20th century system and is not a component of any ancient runic script. It is in no way an 'ancient runic symbol', despite the ADL's claim, as any beginner runologist would know. The ADL is outright wrong here, as it has been far too many times on related topics in its symbol databases. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

How do you square "It is in no way an 'ancient runic symbol'" with the 15th century use then? Your quibble does appear to be about calling the 15th century ancient. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what runes are? And that they're first from around 150 CE? And surely you realize that a runic systemy invented in the early 20th century (Armanen runes) isn't "ancient", right? Gaining a basic familiarity with atopic before flinging yourself at it will do you a lot of good. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The Wolfsangel is not part of the Armanen runes, it only resembles one of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Gee, ya don't say. In fact, it isn't a component of any runic alphabet, ancient or modern. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You keep moving the goalposts, the ADL doesn't say that its a component of a runic alphabet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing has changed, including my observation that the ADL's claim that the Wolfsangel is an 'an ancient runic symbol' remains outright incorrect. In no way is the Wolfsangel an 'ancient runic symbol'. It is in no concievable way an ancient rune and it only somewhat resembles a modern one. Many of the ADL's database entries that comment on ancient symbol origins are garbled or contain similarly incorrect information. Like it or not, that's the simple reality of the situation, and one that those of us who work in these corners have repeatedly had to respond to. The fact is that the ADL is an extremely poor source for topics like historic runology. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

So why are the sources calling it a rune and why do sources seem to routinely do this sort of thing... For instance I don't think that those writing about "Nazi runes" are actually writing about the genuine runic alphabets but about pseudo historical concepts that came much later. Does that mean that any source which uses "rune" to refer to something other than a genuine part of a germanic runic alphabets is automatically unreliable in your opinion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Quality sources on the history of the Wolfsangel certainly don't refer to the Wolfsangel as an 'ancient runic symbol'. It's obviously not. Nazi Germany saw use of Armanen runes here and there (most famously in the logo of the SS). Nazi Germany saw use of a lot of other symbols. One of those symbols was the Wolfsangel. It's crucial that we use high-quality, ideally peer-reviewed sources from specialist academiocs for these articles. There are no shortage of such sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

So again... If the ADL said "early modern runic symbol" you would not object to the ADL's use? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Enough. There's no 'again' here: If the ADL had gotten it right, we wouldn't be having this 'discussion'. To get it right, all the ADL had to say is that the Wolfsangel is an old symbol used for this and that in the past, and maybe throw in some references to actual scholarship on the topic getting even more specific about dates and usage. They could even add that it somewhat resembles a rune from the modern Armanen row. All that would be accurate. Calling it an 'ancient runic symbol' is not. Guido von List believed his 'revealed' runes were ancient. We have no reason to believe they were. It is an unfortunate reality that both the ADL and the SPLC have a history of presenting poor research to the public on the history of topics like runes. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

+1. Every source is reliable or not in context. The ADL isn't a good source for ancient history, and that's OK. It doesn't mean we can't use them for other things.

MrOllie (talk

) 18:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, Bloodofox, you've convinced everyone; but more on my earlier point, how is someone to know all of this nuance when you just mass remove a bunch of material with little explanation. As I said above, all of your removals (and now, due to your clear explanations here, including the ADL one) are perfectly valid and reasonable. The issue is that when you don't plan ahead for what others will reasonably do when they encounter your edits, you end up spending much more work and effort justifying your confusing actions after the fact. I reiterate my advice above: When removing bad sources, take a little extra time up front to remove each source one edit at a time, and explain in each edit summary why it is removed; alternatively, you could leave a notification on the article talk page explaining in detail why each source was removed. Not something like "I removed a bunch of bad sources" but rather, "I removed source XXX for reason YYY, and and I removed source AAA for reason BBB" and so on. Assume everyone who isn't you won't understand why you're doing what you're doing, and cover your tracks. Even if it seems obvious to you, most people won't understand, and when people don't understand what you're doing, they're more likely to revert everything you did. Should they do that? Probably not. That doesn't matter. If you assume they will anyways, and take appropriate action ahead of time to head that off, it will avoid a lot of unpleasantness later. --Jayron32 12:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

MEENAS were rulers prior to the Kacchwaha Rajputs of Jaipur -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• No. It is merely a travel site, not reliable for history.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 02:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This site appears to be, at least in part,

user generated content. See their page on submitting articles. And so wouldn't be a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 18:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Is Milano Finanza (https://www.milanofinanza.it/) a confidential source? Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I assume you mean reliable, rather than confidential.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 19:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I just wanted to know if this report: (https://www.milanofinanza.it/news/l-italia-potrebbe-vendere-jet-typhoon-di-seconda-mano-alla-polonia-quali-vantaggi-per-leonardo-202303301120565298?s=09) is trustworthy? Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  The author is an experienced reporter with news organizations, including 24 years with Milano Finanz. My one caution - I can't read the whole article, because I'm not a subscriber - the bit that I can read says that she is reporting in part based on something from "a Polish website". Without reading more, I would be careful to say that , "MF reported that a Polish website said...." not for the truth of what the Polish website said.

  Banks Irk (talk

  ) 20:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Is the Union of Catholic Asian News (www.ucanews.com) a reliable source? It's used on over 400 pages, according to a quick search.

• Depends on how it's being used. Might be OK for some purposes; for others, not so much. Not going through 400+ pages. Got some examples where you think it should or shouldn't be cited?
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 23:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's reliable in what seem to be its areas of expertise: Catholicism and Asia. I would say it is being used appropriately at

  talk

  ) 23:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Start deleting the references on matters outside that scope. See if anybody objects; if so, take it up on the article talk page. If you can't resolve it there, come back here.

Banks Irk (talk

) 00:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Murder of Don Banfield

[appeal summary] of the case is relied on for basic facts. While many can be re-attributed to reliable secondary sources, a reading has me concerned that there are little finding of fact by the Court to make the document usable. It appears to summarize the Crown and Defense's positions without critical assessment. Can the Crown and Defense statements be used? Or should only material found in secondary sources being used. Slywriter (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No, since these statements are made to petition the court/judge, and so while there's likely any doubt in the factual basis, these can still be circumspect. Masem (t) 16:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• In general, court documents should only be used as supplements to reliable secondary sources that discuss them. For example, if The Guardian had written an article which discussed the court documents in question, then you would cite the Guardian article that is acting as your main source, and you could also cite the court documents as a supplementary source; however everything written in Wikipedia should always be evident only from the information in the Guardian article alone (i.e. the citation to the court documents are not necessary to verify anything written in Wikipedia, they only exist to provide additional context but are not strictly necessary). You should never use text of a court document as the sole source for anything written in Wikipedia. See
  WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says, to wit, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source" --Jayron32
  15:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with Jayron, with the caveat that court documents may be used to verify basic, uncontroversial information about the legal proceeding that is not actually about the BLP subject (e.g. such as the name of the judge that issued the ruling, what court issued the ruling, the date of the ruling). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

There has been a

The analysis of Linoli in Italian. The journal Quaderni Sclavo di diagnostica clinica e di laboratorio seems to have been in operation from 1971 to 1988. The article has maybe been cited once.

Is this article a reliable source? Should it be used in the article? 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:658E:332A:F320:38F9 (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's reliable for saying that 1) The analysis happened, 2) that the analysis was done by the named individuals and 3) summarizing the conclusions of the named individuals. I don't see a problem using it for that purpose. The question of "should it be used in the article" is a matter of

WP:UNDUE, and that's outside the remit of this board. I suggest starting a discussion on the article talk page. --Jayron32

12:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm reviewing this draft Draft:Llovcë massacre at AfC, and although it does cite three sources with sigcov, I'm not sure how reliable those sources are. My gut feeling (and it is only that) is that this probably is okay, this possibly isn't, and I really can't tell about this (looks like a portal, rather than a source?). Can anyone shed any light on this? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't comment on any of those three sources (my gut feeling would be the same as yours) but it feels to me that an article on an event during a war should not be sourced wholly from sources on one side of the conflict, unless they were absolutely sold sources. (And, this is a notability concern rather than a reliability one, the apparent absence of other reliable sources, in English or any other language, suggests the event might not be worth an article.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Bobfrombrockley. That was my concern, precisely. I didn't want to create a diplomatic incident (!) by declaring something a massacre, just because some sources say so. Nor do I want, of course, to do the opposite, hence why I'm trying to understand the merits or otherwise of the sourcing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The first two identify as "portals", the third as a regional news agency (according to google translate). If there are no other sources this seems a bit thin for an article on such a delicate subject. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I was interested in knowing if the Canadian Running Magazine would be considered reliable enough for the topic I'm interested in working on. It's a niche web news site which covers running/track/marathon topics.

I was interested in improving the Draft:Ryan Trahan draft as it is currently not doing so well. This article, if considered reliable enough, would substantially help my goal to improve the draft's quality.

Is this a reliable source for the article? B3251 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. But it may not be the kind of source that contributes too much towards notability. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there's more sources out there for other topics relating to him, but I just wanted to double check since I really wanted to improve some portions of it incase anybody else in the future would like to pick up on it. Thanks! B3251 (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

[23][24][25][26][27][28] -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are you posting them here? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Are all these sources reliable? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I looked at your 3 first.

• [29] seems to have some content on the subject, but I have no idea what "Universal Book Depot" is, and I can't read it beyond snippets.
• [30] What text do you intend to add to the article based on it?
• [31] What text do you intend to add to the article based on it?

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The website "WPG Police Cause Harm" is used at Winnipeg Police Service. My concern is that it appears to be a personal website and blog, with a gmail address. The only information I could find is that it is a "social advocacy group".

The count of the 19 people who Winnipeg Police killed does not include those who died in police custody, any incidents not disclosed to police oversight bodies, nor those who the police shot but who did not die.

Source: https://winnipegpolicecauseharm.org/blog/when-winnipeg-police-caused-harm-in-2020/

In the year 2019 alone, the Winnipeg Police killed seven people.

Sources: http://twitter.com/WpgPoliceHarm/status/1239233143791591426 and https://twitter.com/WpgPoliceHarm/status/1239233571962998791

and filed 857 use-of-force reports, including 154 Taser deployments.

Source: https://winnipegpolicecauseharm.org/blog/when-winnipeg-police-caused-harm-in-2020/

and “the highest proportion of spending by police of any major city in Canada.”

Source: https://winnipegpolicecauseharm.org/blog/history-of-wpch/

“About,” online: Wpg Police Cause Harm

Source: http://winnipegpolicecauseharm.org/about/

Thank you. --Magnolia677 (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Not Reliable. An anonymous individual or group blog by a self-proclaimed advocacy group just a
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 17:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on a little bit of using the Google machine, it appear that the principal spokesperson, and likely author of of the website/blog for the group is

Banks Irk (talk

) 17:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Likely, but not defiantly is. so, it can in fact be written by anyone, so it's a blog and fails SPS. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Also, my apology for appearing to forum shop, but I started a discussion yesterday at
  WP:IMPARTIAL addition by a new editor. I have left a message there, inviting input here. Thank you for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk
  ) 18:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem. When I looked at the discussion on that talkpage and the underlying article, it was obvious that the question about sourcing would end up at RSN sooner or later.

Banks Irk (talk

) 19:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@

Banks Irk did you also see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement? This editor is forum shopping - hopping from place to place to find someone who agrees with him when he doesn't like an answer he gets elsewhere. His refusal to wait for consensus and subsequent edit warring resulted in the article being fully-protected for a few days. I don't think coming here (right now) is helping the discussion. 10mmsocket (talk

) 21:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Which part of my last post don't you understand? This is not helpful; RSN is to discuss reliable sources, not the conduct of editors. The source WPCH is not reliable, period, full stop. It should not be used as a source.

Banks Irk (talk

) 22:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

See

WP:FORUMSHOP. Sage advice. Keep the discussion in one place. 10mmsocket (talk

) 07:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Truth be told, I realized more experienced eyes needed to be on this train wreck of an edit sourced by Twitter feeds, personal blogs, and blacklisted sites...after you commented: "the section uses a number of local and national sources that seem reliable - and I did search

WP:RSP". Magnolia677 (talk

) 13:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Is there a consensus that "Winnipeg Police Cause Harm" is not a reliable source? Can it now be removed from the article? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No-one has advanced any argument here that this advocacy-group anonymous blog is a reliable source. Experienced editors are unanimous that it is a

Banks Irk (talk

) 11:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking of making a section to Georgetown Preparatory School talking about their $8,000,000 new stadium donated by and dedicated to Michael Bidwill and Bill Bidwill. One of the main sources for this prospective section is this article by the Catholic Standard. I don't see any consensus on if they are a reliable source or not. Would it be appropriate to include this source? Scu ba (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the papers general reliability may be,

independence issue.) Random person no 362478479 (talk

) 02:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly on the independence issue. they don't really give any opinions in the article, just talking about how the school has a new stadium, and a new dorm. Regardless I'll omit any opinion in the section on the Georgetown article. Scu ba (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2023 (U

Hello, Scu ba. Your section on the new stadium tells readers very little about the building other than its seating capacity and the size of the financial donation that backed the construction. In my view, you are devoting excessive attention to the various people peripherally involved with this facility and its dedication, and far too little to the actual building itself. Cullen328 (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This website has some WP-presence [33], but per [34] it appears to be

It doesn't look like a reliable source to me at all. They ask people to contribute -- even anonymously -- and there is no indication that there is any editorial review other than that they claim "the sole authority to decide whether or not to webcast the contributed item". Apart from user contributions they republish content from news sources, e.g. a lot of content seems to come from The Sangai Express, so some of the references may not be entirely beyond saving if they can be replaced with references to original publications. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this podcast episode reliable for this information added to Mason Reese? Nightscream (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Well as a post bast it is a

wp:blp I doubt is very much. Slatersteven (talk

) 15:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree. A podcast is a SPS that can't be used in a BLP.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 17:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I also agree, pretty clear SPS, which is a no go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I wasn't sure if that was a well-known (and possible RS) podcast, or just one more published by a non-RS. Nightscream (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is actually not a self-published source. Gimlet Media produced Reply All (podcast), which was a major independent producer of podcasts before they were acquired by Spotify. The people involved were formerly journalists at WNYC and for This American Life. It's no more a self-published source than a BBC or NPR radio documentary. Podcasting primarily a distribution method, but just like a web page or a book it can be self-published or not, reliable or not. Jahaza (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@

Banks Irk, and ScottishFinnishRadish: Do you agree with what Jahaza stated? Nightscream (talk

) 01:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Being produced by a podcast production company is not the same as having oversight from the editorial board of a news organization. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, having been employed as a journalist grants no inherent reliability (and there are many examples to the contrary). Journalists are only reliable when their words are published by established organizations with strong editorial oversight. And since journalists don't count as published subject-matter experts,

WP:EXPERTSPS goes out the window too. Not usable. DFlhb (talk

) 01:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you badly misunderstand how much editorial oversight there is in book, magazine, or newspaper publishing.

You also completely misunderstand the role of an "editorial board" in a news organization, which doesn't have an oversight of its news operation. The exact opposite in fact, the editorial board of a newspaper is on the opinion side and is specifically sequestered from oversight of news coverage. Jahaza (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No, as whilst it may be hosted by Gimlit there is no evidence its still not (in effect) a video blog. The BBC operates an editorial policy, when it does not (as with any newspaper) it is marked as opinion. Gimlit does not appear to do that. Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not a blog and it's not video. These basic errors suggests you're not at all familiar with the source. (And it's "Gimlet" not "Gimlit.")

The BBC does not mark its audio documentaries as news or opinion (frequently they contain both reporting and opinion), listeners are expected to recognize this by context and content (that's how scholarly books and journal articles work too, by the way). Jahaza (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jahaza: Something I should've looked into before but didn't think to: Is the Jonathan Goldstein who hosts that podcast the same as this Jonathan Goldstein? Nightscream (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Are these

WP:ABOUTSELF claims made by the subject during the podcast? Hemiauchenia (talk

) 21:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The material in question consists of:

* His birthday, which is given by his mother, who is also interviewed

* Reese's statement that he knew how to pronounce the word smorgasboard, but was asked to mispronounce it by an ad executive working on the TV commercial he did as a child

* The fact that he has a brother and a sister, which was added by the editor who first added this material and cited this source, though I could not find anywhere in the podcast where he or the host/interviewer gave it. Nightscream (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I want to cite information contained in this article authored by Sukhmandir Khalsa, who is a "Sikh author, educator, and the president of Dharam Khand Sikh Academy" for some Sikh Wikipedia articles related to historical personalities. Can this be article from this site be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia?

It doesn't look like a high quality source to me. It belongs to

Dotdash Meredith for whose reliability status there is currently no consensus (see here). On the positive side learnreligions does have editorial review. I would treat it carefully and only use it if no better sources are available. Random person no 362478479 (talk

) 02:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@

talk

) 02:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@

ThethPunjabi@Random person no 362478479 I may be grumpy here, but "dedicated to helping readers deepen their faith" is a bit of a red flag to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 09:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I don't particularly like that either. But since they deal with all kinds of religion and not pushing one particular faith I wouldn't categorise it as obviously unreliable. Clearly they are very pro-religion, and many of the authors seem to be clergy of one kind or another. But that may be an overly broad reason for excluding it. What about Newspapers published by religious institutions (e.g. vaticannews), or books by theologians? That being said, I strongly suspect that for anything relevant on learnreligions there will be much better and significantly more reliable sources available elsewhere. So I would treat it carefully and avoid if possible, but not necessarily classify it as generally unreliable. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Requesting inputs. A discussion is initiated @ Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal#Attention to updating of MOS guidelines
• Since already a guide line was mentioned there @ WT:MOS/legal besides for discussion on legal aspects it's usually beneficial if one is already informed or exposed to legal terminologies at least in early stage discussions. But few users have suggested me WP:RSN or WT:LAW to be better forums for policy discussions. Whether , at what point and which forum? is better to shift the discussion, if at all, without attracting forum shopping objections. Please guide on this point too.

Bookku (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is the consensus regarding quotes from

Launchballer 09:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:DAILYMIRROR says The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to that of British tabloids such as the Daily Mail and The Sun. The most recent discussion linked from RSP is this one. Personally I wouldn't bother with the quote – the Times article we already cite covers the same material without any concerns about relying on a questionable tabloid, and I don't see how that particular quote is that important. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk

) 14:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I find many informations on FilmFreeway about movies and my fav actors, like informations about the subjects which provides way more informations than "reliable sources". Is there a way someday that it could be seen a reliable as independent artists may not be on famous sources as the guardian? They may not be enough noticed by these sources while sources like FilmFreeway, British Urban Film Festival, Winter Film Awards have more informations. They're independent so of course it's not like teen choice Awards but it doesn't mean it's not reliable. It would help so much underrated artists if that could be seen reliable Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)