Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 361

Archive 355

←

Archive 359

Archive 360

Archive 361

Archive 362

Archive 363

→

Archive 365

Jewish Chronicle

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

---

The RFC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Jewish_Chronicle found "a weak consensus that it's generally reliable" for material related to "content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians". A look at raw vote, and yes I know WP:NOTVOTE but it is useful to examine the situation, counts find of the 30 participants, 18 of them voted option 1 , though one of those only for its pre-2010 content, 9 voted option 3 for at least this topic, and 2 more voted option 4. Of the 18 votes for option 1, three of them came from non-EC accounts, which may not participate in the topic area, and one came from a sock of User:NoCal100 (Kenosha Forever, though that was discovered prior to the close), two came from socks of User:Icewhiz (Hippeus and 11Fox11), and one came from a sock of User:יניב הורון (SoaringLL). If you remove the participation of the users disallowed from commenting by either ARBPIA or by being banned editors, and the user who expressed no opinion on material post-2010, the 18/30 in favor of being generally reliable becomes 11/23, with 11/23 saying generally unreliable or outright publishes false material and should never be used, and one user saying "additional considerations apply". I feel that the close of the RFC is tainted by the participation of banned editors, and as such ask that the post in WP:RSP finding that the Jewish Chronicle to be "generally reliable" be rescinded and a new RFC be run if any user feels it necessary. But the current consensus simply does not reflect the discussion with the participation of banned users removed. Pinging User:ProcrastinatingReader who closed that RFC (and even if I quibble with the close at the time, I dont think it was an unreasonable reading of the discussion as it stood then, but knowing now that banned users make up over 20% of the support makes me think the close should be rescinded). nableezy - 20:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy Yes, it should rescinded - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

No Even if rescind those two votes I don't think its matter as we going by strength of arguments and those who argued that the source in unreliable their arguments were refuted. Shrike (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike - remember that !votes and comments might have influenced judgements of other editors who !voted after (besides the closing person). All results affected by heavy participation of sock-puppets should always be rescinded. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It isnt two votes, it is seven. When a third of the support for a position was disallowed from participating entirely that calls in to question the integrity of the result. nableezy - 21:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy Yeah. Regularly rescinding such results might also discourage sock-puppetry in that topic area a little. I think that's the correct approach. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

You can initiate a new RfC anyway - there is no formal 'rescinding' or a waiting period to do it. Having said that, the closure noted weak evidence against the reliability which remains the case no matter how many sockpuppets !voted in that RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 21:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the current status quo is an issue here. We have an RFC which declares a consensus for a position that the majority of eligible voters argued against. And that supposed consensus is used as a basis now in a number of disputes. nableezy - 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

My point is simply that gauging the current consensus would require a new RfC irrespective of the validity of the previous discussion. Alaexis_¿question? 21:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but claiming a current consensus requires that previous discussion. My view is we have no consensus now, and RSP should not declare one exists. And users are claiming that an RFC that quite literally had 38% of the participants in favor of option 1 banned from participating is however the current consensus and that the source is reliable full stop. nableezy - 21:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis - starting a new one indicating that the last one was affected by heavy sock-puppetry is an alternative, but I like rescinding option because that might discourage future participation of sock-puppets a little. GizzyCatBella🍁 21:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I still fail to see meaningful difference. You also need a consensus for rescinding. Alaexis_¿question? 21:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The meaningful difference is that this would return to a status quo ante in which there is no current consensus on the reliability and RSP may not be used to claim that there is one. Do you think the RFC linked, with the banned comments removed, can reasonably be found to contain a consensus? nableezy - 21:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we have any new evidence for/against reliability of the source since March 2021 that we should look at? If so, maybe re-run the RfC. If not, maybe strike the sock votes and then ask the closer to re-close it. Levivich 22:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Unaware on the former, fine with the latter. Or just vacating it and letting any interested party take up a new RFC if they are so inclined. nableezy - 22:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Will https://bylinetimes.com/2021/09/24/the-ipso-jewish-chronicle-car-crash-just-gets-worse/ this do to be going on with? In case I did not made it clear before, there have been informal discussions (on wiki) about going back to RSN and those involved had agreed to wait but since Nableezy is contesting the "consensus" now, then we may as well get on with it.Selfstudier (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

three of them came from non-EC accounts; even under the "broadly defined" I consider it too "broadly defined" to prevent non-EC related accounts from commenting on the reliability of sources because those sources also cover matters related to the protected area, as it means that articles that are entirely unrelated to the protected area start to be impacted by the restrictions. As such, their comments should be allowed regarding the reliability of "content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam", and dismissed only for comments regarding the reliability of "content involving Palestine/Palestinians". BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the Labour antisemitism dispute is inextricably linked with the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, and indeed Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party is listed as being covered by ARBPIA. nableezy - 22:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that the three non-extended confirmed users are the difference between "reliable" and "no consensus" or "unreliable", perhaps it should read "reliable for x, y, and z in general, no consensus or unreliable for x, y, and z that fall under restricted area" - while a tiny percentage of articles on the British left are covered by the restrictions, the vast majority is not, and I would be hesitant to forbid editors who may otherwise be involved in that area from commenting on sources that they may use because of the tiny percentage, and because of restrictions that aren't related to the work they are doing. BilledMammal (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but I dont think there are many disputed cases of use outside of that area anyway. nableezy - 05:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. Only skimming, but I don't imagine I placed much value in the comment of SoaringLL, and not exceptionally much in 11Fox11's. Hippeus's maybe would've been more influential (on participants too), since it actually contained an argument, but only two other editors voted "per" that editor, and both of those comments also cited two other editors' arguments. Nobody cited Hippeus's arguments individually (as opposed to, eg, BobFromBrockley, who was cited individually by another participant). With three socks blocked since the close I don't think it changes the strength of arguments too much, esp as two of the comments were just straight votes and only one sock made a novel argument. I don't think I discounted comments by non-ECP editors, one because I don't usually check the ECP status of participants unless struck/marked, but also because I'm not sure this RfC is covered by the ARBPIA prohibition (ideally a consensus of admins should decide if it is, at WP:AE; I can see the relation but I wouldn't have thought it necessarily applies).
  I think if I were closing it again I'd have the same finding about general reliability, although probably no consensus for "content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians", in part because it was rather weak in the first place and depends too much on how you read certain comments (comes back to paragraph 1 of the close), and so slight changes in participation probably does affect my reading in that part of the issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it appropriate to update WP:RSP to reflect no consensus on the latter? nableezy - 01:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• If one feels that the prior RFC was tainted by inappropriate participation, the best way forward is to start a fresh RFC to gauge community consensus anew. Consensus can change, and there's no fault with checking in once-in-a-while, especially in 1) a close call and 2) where there are questions about inappropriate votes in the first case. Rather than declaring the prior discussion invalid by decree (especially since the majority of the participation was valid), just start a new RFC. --Jayron32 12:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont just feel that, I think I demonstrated that, and thats fine for determining a new consensus, but right now, as a status quo, users are pointing to a supposed consensus that even the closer says he would not have closed as a consensus knowing what he does now about the participants, and using that supposed consensus to say that the reliability of the JC is settled and it is reliable full stop. Requiring a new RFC to overturn an invalid one does not rectify that issue. nableezy - 14:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE seems to be relevant here. If it takes a few days to conduct a new RFC so we can be sure we have a clean and clear RFC to point to for consensus purposes, that is preferable to rushing ahead without any clear direction from the community one way or the other. I would rather have a clear consensus we can actually use than having one person unilaterally deciding to overturn a prior discussion and pressing ahead as though the opposite consensus were true. The solution to "no existing consensus" is to do nothing, and if we have no consensus, we're bound to do nothing one way or the other, so it behooves us to start that new consensus. --Jayron32 15:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

No, its not relevant here. I am not asking for the opposite consensus to be adopted. I am however saying that we should not be saying there is a consensus when the discussion it is based on does not contain any such consensus with ineligible accounts excluded. I am not asking for a consensus that it is unreliable, I am asking that the entry in RSP be updated to reflect that the RFC does not contain a consensus for this issue. You can pretend like there is not a first movers advantage here, in which a consensus is required to overcome an existing one, but there is, and that existing one is invalid and should not be treated as though it were not. nableezy - 15:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's reasonable. As long as your only claiming that there is no consensus, and have no plans to start overhauling Wikipedia massively until there is a consensus, that seems reasonable. --Jayron32 15:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That is indeed my only claim. nableezy - 16:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously Yes. The JC will need to be reopened at some point, given the new evidence against it, several more cases of defamation have emerged and an IPSO standards investigation has been requested by the JC's victims. This request is being considered and would be the first ever by IPSO, despite it also regulating several deprecated titles (E.g. The Sun, The Star, The Mail group). There have also been two articles on the JC written by a professor of journalism stating it is unreliable since the last RfC.

The last RfC involved large numbers of users who should have been disqualified. It also featured entirely erroneous arguments based on the fact that the JC had been reliable in the past which had no bearing on the case at hand and that it was reliable for other topics than Labour and Muslims, which nobody disputes. It was also widely argued that IPSO regulation and the occasional publication of corrections made the JC reliable, despite the fact the same applies to many deprecated publications. These arguments were seemingly taken as valid by the closer, when they should probably not have been. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The last RfC involved large numbers of users who should have been disqualified. Four out of thirty is not a large number. Levivich 14:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Noisy minorities can have an impact beyond their numbers, probably the whole idea of socking.Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I make it 7, and also what Selfstudier said. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't just make up a number; the number of blocked users is 4. Everyone else is in good standing and is qualified to participate in that discussion. (And seven out of thirty is also not a large number.) Levivich 14:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Define large number for future reference. 50%?Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No, users not extended confirmed are not qualified to participate in project discussions in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. You can't just make up a number. The number is 7, all supporting one side of the debate. nableezy - 16:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the other 3 absolutely were in good standing, but (per Nableezy) they were contributing in an area which forms part of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and did not have the 30 days required for this. The contribution of the socks was constant and sustained, and designed to create the impression that the arguments in favour of reliability were self-evident, and seem much stronger than they actually were.

7 users in this case is the difference between "generally reliable but biased" and "no consensus on reliability", I would suggest this is a very large number in this case.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Please don't argue that the Jewish Chronicle is part of the IP conflict. "Jewish" does not mean the same thing as "Israeli." 30/500 doesn't apply to an RSN about the Jewish Chronicle (or other Jewish media). Levivich 14:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thats a clever trick, changing the framing of the discussion. The Jewish Chronicle's reliability with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area is indeed part of the conflict topic area. And the truly offensive insinuation is something you should be ashamed of. nableezy - 16:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Why do some always have to make it personal? We can't just have a disagreement without resorting to ad hominems on this website. Levivich 16:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am the one who intimated that their interlocutors were opposed to a source because it is "Jewish". I am the one making it personal, silly me. If not for not wanting to violate the same policy as you have, Id tell you where you can shove that insinuation right along with your faux outrage. nableezy - 18:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The JC's disagreement with the Corbyn Labour party was intimately linked to Corbyn's policy on Palestine, and to the JC's proudly declared zionism. Several of the false stories which the JC published were linked directly to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Zionism isn't the same thing as Israel either, and neither is British/Palestinian politics. You are painting with too broad a brush and I find it a bit offensive. The Jewish Chronicle, Zionism, and British/Palestinian politics all go back to long before Israel was founded. These are older than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. JC's reliability is not part of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Levivich 15:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Youve lost that argument before, try not to make us run it back again. Th articles under discussion here are all listed as being in the topic area. If youd like to challenge that you can do so, but pretending that your view is the current consensus one is nonsense. nableezy - 16:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh look, Talk:Zionism has a shiny notice showing it to be in the topic area. Huh. nableezy - 18:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry that my post has upset you, but I think we will have to agree to disagree here. While I recognise that British involvement in Palestine and its relationship to zionism predate the current conflict, the disagreement that the JC had with Labour is entirely attributable to the current situation in I/P and frequently referred to specific current differences on the rights and wrongs of the actually existing I/P situation. Therefore I concur with Nableezy that this falls within the scope of the 500/30 rule. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Your post has not upset me. Finding something a bit offensive isn't upsetting. Similarly, I find "I am sorry that my post has upset you" condescending, but that still doesn't upset me. Don't worry about my emotions; just focus on the arguments please. Levivich 15:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, fyi, in my dialect of English "upset" is a possible synonym of "offended", perhaps that is not the case for you. The Labour-Antisemitism article forms part of ARBPIA, this topic should also a subset of the Labour-Antisemitism article as the JC's relationship to the British left and Muslims was a significant factor in that situation. The JC's negative attitude to Labour and Muslims is entirely conditioned by that scandal, so the same measures should be in place. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you are correct, however, that distinction is increasingly being blurred and not just by the JC whose version of this is to associate the British left (as well as other targets) with support for the Palestinian position and define that as an axis of evil.Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, this is simply a distraction from the main issue, the socked RFC and what to do about it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I probably agree with that as well, the sock contribution was extremely significant whether or not we allow the 3 500/30 contributors. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The user who closed the RFC above says that removing the participation of users disqualified from participating, and I don't know if he is even including the non-ec users either, would likely result in the a finding of no consensus on the matter at issue here. User:ProcrastinatingReader, can you update the close and WP:RSP? nableezy - 16:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsure, since (given the disagreement above on the best way forward) I don't want to unilaterally plough ahead, doubly so as I'm not familiar with RSP practices in situations like this. I don't usually apply the result of my closes in general, or add entries to RSP in cases where I'm the closer (and didn't add this one); I generally prefer RSP regulars/others to turn the reading of consensus into an appropriate RSP format. I think @Newslinger added the entry and is uninvolved & experienced with RSP/RSN, so maybe their take on the way forward might be helpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Jayron32, any suggestions here? I think it fairly clear that no consensus on this topic exists in that RFC, but even with the closer saying that he does not think there was consensus anymore users involved in disputes about this source are continuing to claim a consensus (see immediately below). nableezy - 18:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Or User:Newslinger? nableezy - 18:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, Newslinger hasn't been active for over half a year now. I have updated the section header with the two socks (if I haven't missed anyone else) that were found after the close (one was found before it) but I think the cleanest way for an attempt at overturning the previous RfC will be to start a new one. Seeing as there is a new development (the latest IPSO investigation/development), it would be justified on that ground as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Its three (Hippeus, 11Fox11, and SoaringLL), but Im mostly concerned with the editors claiming a current consensus than with establishing a new one. nableezy - 03:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, I had missed one. I took a brief glance at that discussion as well and even after disregarding the sock comments, I don't think it is that clear whether this is no consensus. The statement in the entry at least still appears to reflect the discussion, though there is a stronger case for no consensus since the sock comments were ardently pushing for generally reliable, while some of the others are more qualified. For the time being, I have edited the RSP entry to indicate that the entry is disputed but this is not a long term solution and I would strongly recommend a new RfC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont think thats enough honestly, and that still includes the non-extended confirmed editors for at least whats covered by ARBPIA. Even the closer says he doesnt think the close reflects the discussion absent the unqualified comments. Im fine starting a new RFC, what I am not fine with is having the basis as a current consensus being what is not a valid consensus. nableezy - 15:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The last RfC or the entry can't be used as a basis anymore if you were to start a new RfC. I can remove the statement in the entry as well and just add a line that an RfC is ongoing when it's opened. Though, if you want to just overturn/discard the previous RfC or remove the entry, I don't think I can do much about it nor do I think it would be very productive, anyways WP:CLOSECHALLENGE would be the way to go. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

We routinely default to the prior consensus in the case of no consensus. And as far as WP:CLOSEREVIEW, thats what I'm trying to do here. And the closing editor has said he doesn't find a consensus anymore. I'm just looking for somebody to update the RSP entry to that effect. nableezy - 19:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking at prior discussions, they mostly focus on a specific incident and would be summarised as "generally reliable" anyways. They are also from 2010 and 2011 so quite outdated especially considering some of the arguements made by the non-sock extended confirmed users in the RfC, who state that its reliability fell after 2010/2016. So defaulting to that would probably end up being counter-productive, but if you really want to go that way then ask for a close review or alternatively a re-close at WP:AN where RSN close challenges usually occur and since there is no clear consensus on what to do with the previous RfC over here (most people are just saying that a new RfC would be the way to go). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Edit - Neutral As always the same characters are here, at least giving the impression of trying to stack the deck. But to quote from the AFD notice: ".. consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes". For now I'm completely opposed to opening up a new RFC on a Jewish Paper which has been in existence for 180 years. Someone above mentioned that "new info" has come to light. If that info is from RS, I'm open to changing my mind, but I haven't seen it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Up above, here, I'll bring it down for you https://bylinetimes.com/2021/09/24/the-ipso-jewish-chronicle-car-crash-just-gets-worse/ . Anyone wishing to start an RFC on JC can do so, this a discussion about amending a previous close. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on that, I withdraw my objections. However, as for the 2020 report they seem to be a member of IPSO in good standing with a well-documented editorial process. And scrolling through some of the incidents, they seem to mostly make quick retractions for any inaccuracies. [1] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bob drobbs, unfortunately IPSO regulates several deprecated titles, Daily Mail, Sunday Mail, The Sun, The Star. All of them publish retractions and are members in good standing. Even so, IPSO is currently considering whether or not to start a standards investigation against JC, which would be the first in its history. It probably won't have one, because IPSO is not a very good regulator and the big papers who pay its bills would vehemently oppose such an investigation, but even so, the JC is in unprecedented territory due to its consistent inaccuracy. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Three comments: (a) If I understand correctly, the objection to the RfC closure seems to include !votes by a couple of non-confirmed editors? ("If you remove the participation of the users disallowed from commenting by either ARBPIA or by being banned editors, and the user who expressed no opinion on material post-2010, the 18/30 in favor of being generally reliable becomes 11/23") But ARBPIA says "Editors who don't meet the qualifications may however use the talkpage to "post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." Thus even if this reliability discussion falls under ARBPIA, these users are perfectly entitled to contribute here. (Of the two non-confirmed users, one has 344 edits since 2014 so not exactly a newbie.) I count 26 !votes from users in good standing, of whom between 11 confirmed clearly argue for GR (14 including newer users and those who !voted for GR but didn't express a view on post-2010 period), 10 argue for GU, 2 for attribute, so the removal of socks makes no substantial difference. (b) If we junk the RfC, wouldn't that mean a return to status quo ante, i.e. general reliability? (c) The "new evidence" against is an opinion piece (it's filed under "Argument" in BylineTimes - RSN discussions here and here come to no consensus on reliability) which refers to "33 breaches" of IPSO's code, which sounds serious, but the breaches relate to a much smaller number of articles. According to the Telegraph earlier in 2021: The letter claimed there had been 28 breaches of the Editors’ Code in three years, and that there would be “more victims” if nothing was done. In fact, IPSO says there were eight complaints upheld in the past three years, with two not upheld and two resolved through mediation.[2] (See here for extended discussion]) Most of these breaches were prior to the RfC under discussion and were referred to in the discussion. I do not oppose a new RfC but the argument of new evidence does not seem that strong. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Bob, we've talked about the opinion quote you cite at length so your use of it here borders on the sophistic. There is no contradiction between 8 upheld complaints and 28 breaches. Both numbers are true, the JC published false information about 8 individuals who made complaints, across various articles in some cases, and IPSO found that the paper had violated their rules in 28 separate instances across articles relating to those complainants. The Telegraph is an exceptionally biased source as it has a declared anti-labour bias and a vested interest in weak press regulations. It is therefore hard to say whether the article you cite is ill-informed or deliberately deceptive. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that 8 complaints and 28 breaches don't contradict each other, but one without the other is misleading - specifically mentioning 28 breaches without clarifying how many articles it refers to makes it sounds like 28 articles which were found to have been in breach. I also agree the Telegraph is biased, but clearly so is Brian Cathcart and Byline (a large number of Cathcart's articles in Byline are attacks on IPSO and/or in praise of its rival Impress; in fact, if we rendered unreliable all the media sources Cathcart attacks there we'd throw out e.g. the BBC and Times along with the bathwater). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Bob, the objection is that three of the users in the closed RFC were socks of banned users, and you are very much misreading the extended confirmed issue. Users may participate on talk pages, but not in project discussions such as RFCs or RSN threads. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. Seeing as you quoted the first part of that from ARBPIA, I am a bit confused as to why you neglected the latter part, you know, the part that matters here and turns your argument on its head. As such, almost 40% of the users supporting generally reliable were disqualified from participating. nableezy - 16:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't get it. The RFC question was Which of the following options should apply to the Jewish Chronicle with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam. with the usual 4 options. How is that covered by ARBPIA? Are JC, "left-wing organizations", Muslims, and Islam, covered by ARBPIA? I don't think so! ARBIA is not about Jews and Muslims. Levivich 16:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

As was pointed out above, I would say British political left as well as other individuals and orgs identifiable as being supportive of Palestinian rights, might as well be, as far as JC is concerned, not just a little bit but hopelessly biased.Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The material related to Palestine and the Palestinians as well as the British Labour party antisemitism dispute are all listed as being in the ARBPIA topic area. Kindly stop misrepresenting your interlocutors arguments, nobody has said anything about it being ARBPIA because of anything about Jews, Judiasm, or Jewishness; the RFC close very clearly references topics in the ARBPIA topic area and for those topics EC is required to participate in a noticeboard discussion. nableezy - 16:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

(Again with the ad hominems. You just won't give it a rest with that. It's like every single reply you make must contain an accusation of wrongdoing against me personally. Take me to a noticeboard or shut up already.) So the British left is covered by ARBPIA is what you're saying? You want to exclude non-EC editors from an RFC about "Jewish Chronicle with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam" (not specific to Britain) because some !voters mentioned the British left in their !votes? I don't the British left is part of ARBPIA (everyone has an opinion about Israel/Palestine, that doesn't make everyone part of ARBPIA), and even if it was, the RfC wasn't asking about that specifically. Levivich 17:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

So the British left is covered by ARBPIA is what you're saying? Pretty sure nobody said that except you.Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You have a curious understanding of the term ad hominem. I made no accusation about you, I remarked about your repeated attempt to frame this as though is has to do with "Jews". The implication youve made several times here is outrageous. That is not an attack on your person, but on what youve written here, and what youve implied about others. And yes, the RFC was very much about those topics. The entirety of the dispute of the reliability was centered on the coverage of the Labour party antisemitism dispute. That, as Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party]] shows, is in the ARBPIA topic area. The close also references those topics, when it says As for content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians: the consensus is weaker and it's somewhere between a weak consensus that it's generally reliable and no consensus. You can keep pretending that the discussion does not include material that very much is in the ARBPIA topic area, but anybody can see on the respective talk pages for those topics that they are included and your position is baseless. nableezy - 17:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I find it weird that you don't think those statements count as ad hominems. Anyway, I don't think that non-EC editors should be excluded from an RfC about the reliability of "Jewish Chronicle with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam" (which is what the RfC asked) just because there are content disputes about JC and the British left, even if those content disputes were raised by participants in the RfC, and even if the closer addressed them as part of the closing statement. I don't think that a general, not-specific-to-ARBPIA RfC should exclude non-EC editors just because someone brings up ARBPIA issues in the discussion or because there is a related discussion on some other page. Levivich 18:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The dispute was centered around its coverage of Jewish Voice for Labour (in ARBPIA per talk page notice), and one of the non-EC users specifically discussed JVL (saying passes off a JVL complaint as having weight ...). So no, it is not just that the disputes were raised, even the non-EC accounts discussed them specifically. And in noticeboard discussions that is disallowed. nableezy - 18:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you're the one that suggested asking the closer to look at it again without the sock comments. And the closer said he would find it having no consensus for the topic under discussion here. And it isnt even clear if he left out the non-EC accounts in that finding anyway. Im curious as to why your own suggested course of action is no longer acceptable to you. nableezy - 18:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see where I said my suggested course of action is no longer acceptable to me, whatever that course was. I don't see where the closer weighed in on the ECP issue. I still think you should have a new RfC, which would be half done by now had you just done that. And if it's about ARBPIA then obvi ECP editors should be excluded. But if it's more general, like the original RfC question about JC and the Left and Muslims and Islam, then ECP editors should not be excluded. And more generally, what I'm saying here is not crazy, hypocritical, against policy, misrepresenting anything, or in any other way disruptive or immoral or anything like that. I don't mind if you disagree with me of course, but I really am asking you to stop constantly attacking me whenever I happen to disagree with you, and I mean like in every damn edit, in every response to me, you try to catch me in some kind of wrongdoing. You're constantly throwing crap at me. I'm tired of it and I'm not going to keep putting up with it. Levivich 19:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

When you write 30/500 doesn't apply to an RSN about the Jewish Chronicle (or other Jewish media) as though it being "Jewish media" was raised as a reason for why it applies at all you are indeed making an outrageous insinuation. One that you have yet to retract. When you say that others are being offensive for making an argument that they never made, that "Jewish" is a synonym for "Israeli", you are indeed making an outrageous insinuation. One that you have yet to retract. Nobody said that the British left is covered by ARBPIA. And claiming that anybody did, as when you write the British left is covered by ARBPIA is what you're saying?, is indeed misrepresenting your interlocutors argument. Since you seem to appreciate calling arguments logical fallacies even when they are not, maybe look at straw man. Im kind of tired of that myself. I dont really care what you want to put up with, Im more concerned with removing the claim in RSP based on an RFC that was indeed overrun with ineligible accounts, so much so that nearly 40% of the supporters for the finding listed were ineligible to participate. It would be great that if, instead of seeing bs about "Jewish" does not mean the same thing as "Israeli." when nobody said that it did, you could redirect your comments to the issue at hand, that being the RFC not having any consensus when ineligible accounts are discounted. nableezy - 19:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If it doesn't have to do with "Jewish", "Israel", or "British left", or a content dispute on another article, then why would the Jewish Chronicle RSN RFC be covered by ARBPIA? Every time I think I understand the connection is, you attack me for thinking it. In what world is asking for clarification ("is what you're saying?") a "misrepresentation"? You ABF in literally every comment directed to me (for example, my comments make no insinuations at all, I am explicit in my communications), including your last one. This is the last time I'm going to post about your comments here but I want to be clear that I'm asking you to be less hostile if you choose to communicate with me in the future. If what I'm doing is really as bad as what you say, take me to a noticeboard, but if you keep making constant accusations against me, I may take you to a noticeboard. Levivich 19:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure Ive explained why the line 30/500 doesn't apply to an RSN about the Jewish Chronicle (or other Jewish media) does indeed make an insinuation that editors are raising objections due to the source being "Jewish media", and it is an implication that I find incredibly offensive. I want to be clear I am asking you to not make implications of racism against others, it is very much ABF. As Ive seen said before, Take me to a noticeboard or shut up already. As far as the piece of substance in this, the British Labour antisemitism article is listed as being in ARBPIA. the JVL article is listed as being in ARBPIA. This discussion was focused on those topics. As such, it was in ARBPIA, insofar that the close is related to those topics. And that is the only part of the close I am challenging here. It would be great if you could discuss that part, and not bring up irrelevant crap like "Jewish" is not synonymous with "Israeli", a claim that quite literally nobody made. nableezy - 19:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no hurry to do the RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

To me it's an obvious thing but apparently not. Maybe we could somehow include the ecp question in the RFC ie allow non ecp subject to a determination on that by ecps. Just a thought.Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Such matters should be probably determined at WP:AN or WP:AE --18:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Jewish Chronicle)

With Nyx86 now blocked as an Icewhiz sock (option 1), that changes the numbers even further here, with an absolute majority now in favor of generally unreliable or wholly unreliable for the topic under discussion here. And there may be one more Icewhiz sock in that list to be blocked. But with just Nyx86 removed, that changes the math even further. Can we discard that RFC now? nableezy - 03:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It is incredible how much sock interest there is in keeping this awful source reliable. Could you possibly link to the page where this block is stated? There is nothing on the user page. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Here Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Another one indeffed, so per Nableezy above, it's safe to say that that RFC was well socked and the result unsafe,Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You mean another one in addition to Nyx? Also has Nyx been confirmed, or still suspected, as the link above seems to say? I believe removing Nyx means there were 10 non-sock confirmed users arguing for general reliability (plus two editors whose contributions are valid if this is not covered by ARBPIA) and 10 arguing for general unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, see the link I put just above. Says Nyx blocked and DroidIam indeffed.Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You can also see that an account is blocked by looking at their contributions page [3] Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this RfC is one where counting numbers doesn't lead to an accurate determination of consensus. When I originally closed it, I believe I created a little table of arguments and weighted it by general support for each argument. eg some editors only commented on reliability in certain areas and not others. Also, some editors presented evidence (or clearly referred to evidence) while others didn't (I tend to place more value in the former than the latter). It also seemed like some editors were only/mainly discussing reliability in areas outside the contested topics. With examples like these in mind, counting numbers doesn't really work.

With regards to the sockpuppetry issue, I now recall WP:CLOSECHALLENGE allows me to adjust my original close where significant additional information or context was left out of the discussion and the closer was not aware of it. (my understanding is that five later-discovered socks are one such example). As such, I've updated the close and (slightly more reluctantly, but in the interest of moving this forward) the associated RSP entry. Despite the socking, I think the discussion is still valid for determining the consensus on other topics/bias/attribution, but if anyone feels the rest is also too tainted then I'd suggest a WP:AN discussion would be more likely to lead to a conclusion. Hope that helps. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. nableezy - 15:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader and Nableezy - was this user even permitted to comment (!vote) in ARBPIA topic area? -->[4]. Total of 36 edits -->[5] - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Was not, but I think this is settled at this point, and if somebody wants to start a new RFC that hopefully is not overrun with sockpuppets that is fine by me. But for at least what I was looking for this is resolved. nableezy - 19:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I was going to ask whether they've been examined for possible socking as well given the extremely heavy sock participation in the rest of the RFC; it seems strange for an editor who had never previously contributed to RSN and who had not edited at all in the past few months to pop up there just to weigh in on this with an opinion in-line with all the socks, especially given that they created a user page immediately beforehand (which, to me, suggests that could be an experienced user who recognized that a red name weighing in on an RFC might have drawn unwanted attention.) But that's a question for WP:SPI. Also, I feel that people should remember to apply due scrutiny to future RFCs in this topic area - no need to WP:BITE, of course, but SPI is relatively lightweight and harmless; and I don't see any reason to think that Icewhiz et all are likely to stop using socks in RFCs given that he likely counts these as at least temporary successes. --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a highly partisan source that has fabricated stories about people whose politics it disagrees with. That's pretty obvious from headlines such as "The BBC has chosen to lie and pick a fight with Jews" (9 Dec. 2021). Even if it met journalistic standards, it should be treated as a niche publication. It's only use be for articles about Jewish people in the UK that received little coverage in major media. TFD (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: similar to the Pink News discussion last month, I feel this discussion is less about the source's reliability and more about how certain editors feel about the source's editorial line on certain real-world issues; seeing some famous names who have been at the ARBPIA coalface for years in this discussion only convinces me more. Sources are allowed to have editorial lines, and we should express due caution, but a source doesn't automagically become unreliable because they disagree with you on a political matter (or reliable because they agree with you). Sceptre (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Um, guys, this section actually is not about the source's reliability at all, it was about an RFC that had been compromised due to nearly half of the supporters being socks of banned editors. If you want to start a new discussion about the sources reliability then have at it, but it aint this one. nableezy - 21:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

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

RfC on Glenn Greenwald

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

---

Not properly formed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Glenn Greenwald is an independent journalist. Even when he worked at The Intercept he published his articles without edits. He is one of the most important and influential journalists of our time. His revelations of the documents Edward Snowden provided sent a shockwave through the entire Western World about the illegal government activities of surveillance and established him as one of the most important journalists. He was working for The Guardian then (2012) but now he is independent. There was a discussion about him at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Glenn Greenwald and the conclusion was that his quoted opinions are unreliable not only because Self Published Sources are unreliable but because he is considered to have no credibility and integrity as a journalist. Since I arrived too late and my disagreement was not answered, I asked about independent journalists in general and provided this specific example at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Independent journalists. It must be noted that his position is not friendly towards president Joe Biden. So his views will not be published by the Biden-friendly media (the liberal media), and those news outlets happen to be considered Reliable Sources here. He had to leave The Intercept because they were not happy with his article about accusations against president Biden's son. The rest of the media, who is Biden-unfriendly and generally Trump-friendly, is considered to be not Reliable Sources at Wikipedia. For example Fox News and New York Post. This is not a question of reliability of Self Published Sources, it is also not about the bias of the media. This is a question of: Is Glenn Greenwald considered to have no credibility? No integrity? No honesty? Can not be trusted? Is he working for Russia? Is he pushing ideas debunked by RS? He has forsaken good journalistic practices? This is the question. Did he change and from the good journalist he was, he now became the opposite? - Barecode (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC) I think the question posed here is too broad. What particular content are you citing to Greenwald and in what context in what Wikipedia article are you proposing his work be cited? Are you asking for text in Wikipedia's voice? Are you presenting his opinion on a topic? All of that matters, per WP:RSCONTEXT, universal reliability for any purpose is not a useful concept. --Jayron32 17:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Since Greenwald is considered to be dishonest, having no credibility etc., that makes him undesirable in any context. But in my case the context was the president's son corruption accusations and his opinion was deleted, not because he is a SPS but because he is considered to be a bad journalist, and that applies everywhere else one would try to quote Greenwald. Barecode (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Barecode, you need to read the rules for an RfC. Your introduction must be completely neutral, so you've already screwed this one up. It will need to be hatted. After you have familiarized yourself with the rules, you can try again, but also follow the advice you're getting above. See: Creating an RfC. -- Valjean (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I have no experience in opening RfCs. How about this introduction:

• There was a previous discussion about Glenn Greenwald's credibility here: Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Glenn Greenwald and no consensus has been reached.

Is this intro acceptable? Can anyone help me please? Thanks. -- Barecode (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

If the angle here is that the Wikipedia should accept Glenn Greenwald, broadly, as a reliable source, then this is going to be dead on arrival regardless of how the opener is crafted. The Guardian is what was the reliable source when he was employed there. They have the history of fact-checking and such that the Wikipedia requires for sourcing. Not individuals employed there. Greenwald is just another guy with an opinion now. Further, stating that Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Glenn Greenwald closed as "no consensus" is misleading. "NC" implies that there was a stalemate among a roughly equal number of editors and opinion. Only you and 1 other editor (one who has pretty much only edited that discussion after 2 years of inactivity) pushed this, the discussion was closed as it was a dead-end. ValarianB (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSN doesn't generally evaluate the reliability of individuals outside of very specific cases where they're cited for their expertise. The normal reliability of an WP:RS comes from the publisher's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which requires a fact-checking process independent of the author; if Greenwald writes an article in The Intercept, we trust them to fact-check it, to edit it, and to prevent him from publishing anything that fails their verification process (and if there is a reason to think that they weren't doing that, then nothing Greenwald published in the Intercept can be cited, though my reading of his split with them is that they actually were doing it and he just didn't notice or realize until he wrote something so flagrantly wrong that they nixed the entire article.) Greenwald very, very clearly does not qualify as an established subject-matter expert under most circumstances; the bar for that is quite high, not just "has some expertise." He's not a reliable source himself, basically, but this isn't saying anything too specific about him - the same is true for most talking heads and public figures. The list of people whose opinions are relevant and due simply because they have expressed that opinion (rather than because it is covered in a high-quality source) is very limited, consisting mostly of world leaders and widely-acknowledged top experts in specific fields. EDIT: I would also take Greenwald's split from the intercept as a reason to be particularly cautious about anything he publishes in a marginal source, because he's overtly expressed an unwillingness to work with any publisher that he feels applies standard fact-checking and accuracy constraints to him - ie. if a source is on the fence or dubious and they publish something by Greenwald, that history is probably enough to push it to "they probably didn't fact-check this", making that particular piece generally a non-WP:RS.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Excellent summaries of the situation. Even if he was considered good before, his attitude against his work being fact-checked means Greenwald totally fails our requirements for reliability. -- Valjean (talk)

Valjean - Bari Weiss had to leave NYT because she was not allowed to publish an article by the internal fact checkers of the publication. Who checks the fact checkers? Facebook banned Kyle Rittenhouse and that was an error confirmed by the court decision about Rittenhouse innocence. Then Facebook blamed their failure on fact checkers. Twitter did the same and they admitted they were wrong, therefore their fact checkers failed. Greenwald could not accept to be fact checked by people with completely different views. This is from the very article you linked "Greenwald’s conflict with The Intercept was part of a larger culture clash between Greenwald, a civil libertarian who objects in the strongest possible terms to any limitations on freedom of speech, and some of his younger left-leaning colleagues, who believe they have a responsibility to call out and try to shut down what they consider hateful or harmful speech". Therefore I have to disagree - it was a matter of being against fact-checking just as you refusing for Trump fact-checking you would be a matter of you being against fact-checking.

To everyone: I am not trying to debate Greenwald as a reliable source, I am trying to debate his credibility. I am very happy with a conclusion of the community consensus like "Greenwald totally fails our requirements for reliability." (which is pretty much a conclusion about his credibility) - even though I disagree with that conclusion. What I wish is to get the explicit community consensus about Greenwald so please help me to start that RfC and please answer me in that RfC, and not here. Thank you. -- Barecode (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

"I am not trying to debate Greenwald as a reliable source, I am trying to debate his credibility" ← please go away and do it on some other part of the web; it's an abuse of Wikipedia and this noticeboard. Alexbrn (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

That is not constructive. The RFC opening was far from perfect – the opening question was not clear and concise and RFC categories were missing, but that does not make the RFC abusive. Politrukki (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd personally separate Greenwald into two distinct eras, with the line being probably at the 2016 presidential election. Greenwald's career trajectory seems to have followed that of Gemma O'Doherty's – a once-respected journalist who let an understandable grudge (i.e., the arrest of his husband under terrorism legislation) push him down into crankery. The Intercept took a massive hit in its credibility for its role in the Clinton emails affair, and doubly so when they effectively outed Reality Winner as a whistleblower through rank carelessness. These days, he's a regular guest on Tucker Carlson's White Power Hour and is more concerned with Owning The Libs™ than actual journalism, which is disappointing for everyone involved. Sceptre (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

If I open a RfC about Glenn Greenwald's reliability, then maybe it will be closed? Because he is a Self Published Source and such sources are considered unreliable. I don't want to risk the RfC to be closed from the very beginning invoking technicalities. If I will open a RfC like this: "Does Glenn Greenwald totally fail Wikipedia requirements for reliability? There was no consensus reached before", is it ok? Or it will be closed quickly for some reason?

Alexbrn - With all due respect, I think you try to create outrage in order to shut me down for "abuse" before I have a chance to open a RfC about Glenn Greenwald. At this moment, the conclusion is that Greenwald has no credibility, and therefore he can not be quoted in any Wikipedia article. That is equivalent with a Wikipedia ban on Greenwald's opinions. Yet the Wikipedia editors claim that he was not banned. The situation created allows ambiguities, confusion and ambivalence. The ban is based on credibility (or total failure to comply with the requirements for reliability if you want).

I see here that editors are interested to talk about Greenwald's reliability, so why not making a RfC about it? Is anyone afraid of that? Can anyone please help me to open the RfC and to make it in such a way that it won't be closed quickly like the previous attempt? Thanks in advance. -- Barecode (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia got in a situation where Wikipedia editors decided that an independent journalist has no credibility but in the same time it is hard (or maybe impossible) to debate in a proper manner (in a RfC) the credibility or the reliability of that independent journalist. And this situation can be justified with a lot of technical details. And even with outrage. -- Barecode (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Barecode, how exactly do you want to use Greenwald's writings? The RfC should ask a question, e.g., "Should Greenwald's opinion on Y be included in article X?" Alaexis_¿question? 14:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis - I don't want a RfC about including Glen Greenwald's opinion in a specific article. The conclusion of this debate Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Glenn Greenwald was that he has no credibility whatsoever, you can check above to see a very similar conclusion: "totally fails our requirements for reliability". Such a conclusion means his opinion can't be included in any article. This is what I want to debate in a RfC - his overall credibility/reliability. The particular situation where it originated from is irrelevant now. Barecode (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Barecode, as far as I can see from his substack, he doesn't do much original reporting. That means that the question is whether his opinions are worthy of including in Wikipedia. This is not a question of reliability - we are pretty sure that what we read on [6] is written by Grenwald. The question is whether his opinion is relevant and should be included somewhere. The answer would be "it depends" which is why I suggest to ask a concrete question.

Re Talk:Biden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory#Glenn_Greenwald I don't quite understand what you want to add to the article out of a one-hour youtube video.Alaexis_¿question? 15:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis - It's not about the video, I arrived later, please check this edit. But how can you include the opinion of someone who has no credibility and totally fails the requirements for reliability? This is my focus now, please forget about that Biden-Ukraine article. Can we please talk about Greenwald inside a RfC? Nobody wants to help me to start a RfC. I have no experience with RfC and I don't want to start another RfC and to risk to get it closed quickly. Please also check this: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Reliability_and_Credibility. -- Barecode (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you frame your concerns in terms of WP policies? Aquillion summary refers. It sounds to me that what you really want to do is include material into his article, in which case what you need are reliable sources giving their opinion about him. It's a BLP so we can't ourselves go around saying uncomplimentary unsourced things about him. You may believe X but what we need here is an RS saying X.Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier - Imagine on the talk page of the article Toy a few editors decide that NYT is not a RS and you want to open a RfC here about NYT so the entire community decide if NYT is a RS or not. In that situation, how can you frame your concerns in terms of WP policies? I am asking because I really don't know how to frame that in terms of WP policies. It looks plain wrong to decide in a random talk page that NYT is RS or not. Is there a policy to prevent or to correct that situation? I really hope so! Things become tricky when you talk about independent journalists - I explained it here: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Reliability_and_Credibility. Aquillion's summary is great, it's fantastic - as long it its inside a RFC. I disagree with that summary but I want it inside a RfC, not in the extra conversation following a closed RfC. What I wish is a RfC about Glenn Greenwald but my lack of experience and technicalities make it very difficult for me to start that RfC. Maybe you can help? Barecode (talk) -- 16:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I suspect this is just another example of editors (usually American-politics-POV-warriors) wanting some kind of quasi-legal "ruling" to advantage their side. I have no interest in Mr Greenwald but it seems there is RS out there which is usable and bears on the question of his reputation. That might be of interest for improving his biography, but the predictably polarized viewpoints of Wikipedia editors are irrelevant. See: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 16:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

If the question is whether Greenwald's views that are published only on Greenwald's Substack or Youtube channel, it would be reasonable to assume that they should be treated as self-published sources, and should be cited only in rare circumstances.

But much of this is about user conduct. In the linked discussion editors who view Greenwald or Greenwald's opinions negatively, and who know that involved editors should not be closing discussions, have used archiving as a method to "win" an argument. Other users who participated that discussion are known to throw a hissy fit claiming serious NPOV violations if their favourite op-eds are not included in Wikipedia, regardless of how dubious claims they promote.

Some participants have tried to discredit Greenwald for years, for example in this discussion an editor makes an unsubstantiated claim that "Greenwald is basically a fringe self-published writer" even though the discussion was about including Greenwald's commentary that was cited in Columbia Journalism Review. That discussion led into an RFC, which didn't result in clear consensus, but the closing reminded that "WP:BLP applies to talk pages as much as it does anywhere else on Wikipedia, and personal attacks on Greenwald (or any other living person) are equally as inappropriate as any personal attacks on Wikipedia editors."

How to resolve the original question? I don't know if there are any RFC questions that could lead to a good outcome, and I would suggest Barecode drop this issue – unless someone comes up with a brilliant idea for a question. In some cases it's obvious that a certain writer in a reliable publication can quickly become unreliable (see Claas Relotius). That's not the case with Greenwald, whose opinions continue to be cited in mainstream publications, including academic research. On a case-by-case basis editors may have legitimate arguments about whether Greenwald's opinions should or shouldn't be included, but arguments that are not policy-based should be dismissed. If editors continue to disrupt discussions, conduct issues should be resolved by stern warnings, topic-bans, and such. Politrukki (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

References

• For your Toy example that's what we do at this board, you could come here and ask whether NYT is reliable for either a specific statement or in general. Frequently there is a presumption of reliability I don't think anyone seriously doubts the reliability of NYT in general which is not to say that they may not be reliable for something specific. The rules for persons, especially living persons are different and if they have an article on WP, they are by definition, notable (which doesn't necessarily mean "reliable" or "credible"). If RS report on them, then we can usually cite the RS. If you haven't read WP:BLP, I suggest doing that before going further.Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Barecode, let's unpack it. You write The conclusion of this debate Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Glenn Greenwald was that he has no credibility whatsoever, you can check above to see a very similar conclusion: "totally fails our requirements for reliability". Assuming there is a local consensus to that effect on that page, it is no way binding and Greenwald's opinions might be included if they are relevant. Therefore the statement Such a conclusion means his opinion can't be included in any article is incorrect.

If you are not happy with the outcome of the said discussion you can initiate an RfC asking "Should Greenwald's opinion on the conduct of the media be included in the article Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory?" to request additional input. You should do it there and not here because it's not a reliability issue.

If you want to use materials published by Greenwald himself (substack, youtube, but not Fox News interview), they fall under WP:SPS. They "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." Probably he satisfies this condition. Alaexis_¿question? 16:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn - yes I want a RfC that can be approximated as a quasi-legal "ruling". The result of that RfC is clear: Greenwald has no credibility and zero reliability. How can that advantage my side (I am a supporter of Greenwald)?

Selfstudier - sorry but I wasn't talking about the notability of a living person. I was talking about the reliability and credibility of an independent journalist. Are you sure you did read this section? It looks like you didn't but rush to giving advices. -- Barecode (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'll leave you to your own devices, I still suggest reading WP:BLP though.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Barecode, the correct, policy based answer to this RfC is Greenwald is reliable for his opinions. Greenwald does not qualify as a RS because he is self publishing. Material that Greenwald authored and was published by other sources is reliable/not reliable based on the general reliability of that source (with the usual general source vs specific article disclaimers applied). Greenwald's opinions may or may not be DUE per the typical SPS and exceptions that can apply to subject matter experts. I don't think any experienced editor will tell you much different. Some may think Greenwald is lousy and some won't but basically everyone here is saying this will fail because it conflicts with long standing and well accepted policy. Springee (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis - How can you include the opinions of someone who "totally fails our requirements for reliability" (you can read that statement above) in any article? I disagree with the claim that Greenwald has no credibility and totally fails our requirements for reliability - can we please make a RfC for that? A RfC for the overall reliability and credibility of Greenwald. -- Barecode (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Springee - You say that Greenwald is not RS because he is SPS. I agree with that. Valjean says about Greenwald: he has no credibility and totally fails our requirements for reliability. That's a very different statement than your statement. And I disagree with Valjean's statement. Can we make a RfC about that? -- Barecode (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It's u:Valjean's personal opinion and not Wikipedia policy that Greenwald has no credibility and totally fails our requirements for reliability. u:Springee's summary is really good, I can't add anything to it. Alaexis_¿question? 16:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Bingo! I couldn't say it better (except for the "not Wikipedia policy" as his status as an SPS is policy and why I reject any wide usage). Springee is spot on and I agree with that, and my agreement and opinions are based on my understanding of the same policies. Barecode, my opinion is not binding, and Wikipedia has not "concluded" anything based on my opinion. That is your misunderstanding, so please stop quoting me as that will get you nowhere. Change your arguments by citing actual policies. That will get you much further. So make your choice: Do you just want to misuse me or do you want to make progress with understanding our policies? (Pssst...only the latter is a legitimate choice. The former would be a fallacious way to proceed and will only get you in trouble.)

Editors of all stripes express their opinions in discussions. If other editors agree with an opinion that seems to line up with various PAG, then a local consensus may form around that opinion and that will then help to determine what edits and article improvements are made in that situation. Sometimes that opinion gets support on other pages and may inform the opinions of other editors. So be it. That's often how things work here, and there's nothing wrong with that. Ultimately, it comes down to whether there is RS backing for the opinions of editors. Even if they didn't mention the PAG at the time, experienced editors may still understand the background. If other editors sense that the opinion is in line with our PAG, then it will likely gain support.

If an editor disagrees with that opinion, then that becomes part of the discussion. Other editors may view their opinion as not being backed by PAG. Therefore, if that editor doesn't gain support and starts forum shopping elsewhere to gain support, they may risk getting blowback because, as the other editors who did not support their opinions had noticed, their views are still seen as at odds with our PAG. That kind of forum shopping can result in topic bans or other sanctions.

I suggest that Barecode follow the advice they have been getting in all the discussions they have started in at least four different locations where they have forum shopped these issues. User:Alaexis and User:Selfstudier have offered some good advice above. -- Valjean (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure as to how anything productive can come from this discussion, as what we're talking abut here is the possibility of adding an individual to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, when from a quick skim there is no individual there thus far. Even people like Alex Jones don't get an individual listing, he gets in via Infowars, i.e. the media outlet is what is rated, not the individual. As some have said, there's no hard ban on using a self-published person as a source, but the idea of creating WP:GREENWALD to do a blanket ban or accept does not sit well with me. The question on whether or not to use this person as a source should be left to a case-by-case discussion on the relevant talk page. @Barecode:, I think it would be best to go to an article where you're having a discussion, and make an RfC for a specific article of Greenwald's that you feel would be of benefit to the reader of that article. I've never made an RfC myself, but it looks like all you really need to to jut make a simple statement of what the source is and ask for people to weigh in. Save your arguments for why for the ensuing discussion, don't inject anything of your opinion into the opening section. Good luck. Zaathras (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis - I thought RfC can discuss personal opinions. Valjean said this: "I look forward to such an RfC. I do believe that some people should be rated as unreliable sources based on their repeated denials of clearly proven facts and pushing of debunked views and conspiracy theories. In such cases, we are literally looking only at their (un)"reliability" in the sense of their having lost contact with certain important points of political reality." (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC_on_Glenn_Greenwald) - So is anyone here ok with opening a RfC about Glenn Greenwald's unreliabilty? -- Barecode (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no point in carving out a one-person exception to policies like WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF that serve us very well. (They also exclude roughly a bajillion left-wing sources, so people unhappy with "Wikipedia's bias" should appreciate them.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what the exact question is, but if we're talking about citing his Substack, Twitter, etc then I would consider him unreliable. He's a self-published source who quit The Intercept because he didn't want to deal with editors and fact-checking. Of course it's entirely possible he gets a lot of stuff right, but still doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. If we are citing articles in he wrote in The Guardian or The Intercept that's probably fine. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

XOR'easter - I did not suggest carving out a one-person exception to policies. I suggested a RfC about Greenwald's unreliability. If there can be a RfC about NYP reliability, then there is no problem with making a RfC about Greenwald's unreliability. There is no exception required. It is the same WP policy. -- Barecode (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

No, because NYP is a publication and Mr Greenwald is a person. What is more, WP:RSP has zero policy force and is an index of prior discussions and current consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Eh. It isn’t a WP:PAG inasmuch as it is properly an explanatory supplement. But, like the WP:Biomedical information explanatory supplement to WP:MEDRS, WP:RSP certainly carries weight in discussions on article talk pages that pertain to source reliability. In particular, the RfCs listed on it that took place on this board generally carry the weight of community consensus, which would supersede any local consensus regarding general reliability (for example, consensus achieved at a WikiProject level). — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

You seem to agree. It's some editors' not-well-vetted idea of what current consensus is. Probably quite handy in many cases, but not "policy". Alexbrn (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean, WP:BMI is incredibly important for where to apply WP:MEDRS, even though it is merely an explanatory supplement (see the massive pandemic origins RfC from earlier this year to see how much editors give deference to that page). I'd agree in cases where there is no underlying RfC that it doesn't necessarily carry the weight of community consensus, but the argument that the list is not well-vetted is a bit odd. I do question the classifications of some entries on it that don't have an underlying RfC, but those that are attached to some sort of RfC reflect community consensus very well with respect to WP:GREL vs WP:MREL vs WP:GUNREL vs WP:DEPREC. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:BMI has many of the same problems as WP:RSP as it turns out (see WT:BMI), with some editors trying to take what is meant to be a helpful supplement, and use it as a kind of Law of Holy Writ to undercut the WP:PAGs. These things are helpful for editors already clueful about policy, but can be toxic for editors who think they are policy. Alexbrn (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not suggest carving out a one-person exception to policies. I suggested a RfC about Greenwald's unreliability. At the risk of sounding flippant... potayto, potahto. An RfC asking to deem someone's self-published writings "reliable" in the face of the plain statements of WP:SPS is asking for a one-person carveout of policy. Comparisons to RfC's about publications fall flat because, well, they're publications and he's just a person. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Facebook

Can Facebook video be cited as a source for a particular statement? I mean is a facebook video regarded as verifiable? ― Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 13:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Not unless it's posted by the Facebook account of a reliable source, such as a newspaper or online news organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof How will it be verifiable then? For example, it will be in the language of the content, which others won't understand. So, is it considered verifiable? ― Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 13:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

That all depends on who it is. If it is (for example) the verified account of the person being quoted probably (depends on what they are being quoted for). If it is the Verified account of an RS, yes. If it is just "some bloke on the internet", no.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Consider, a tv channel has a facebook page, and they post about some show. Then someone adds it to an article, so will it be verifiable ― Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 13:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Again it all depends on who the TV channel is. So why not just ask "is the TV channel an RS?" As we have said, if the channel is RS so is their (assuming it has been verified as them by YouTube) YouTube channel.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Is Star Jalsha a RS? ― Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 13:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Well as it seems to be an entertrainment channel I am unsure what it would be used for, it would (for example) be problematic for scientific or medical claims. I think you need to tell us what it is you want to cite it for.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I want to cite them for supporting statements regarding their tv shows. ― Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 14:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Itcouldbepossible, if you are trying to source them for any of their own shows or serials, then it would be a primary source, which might be okay for basic facts as long as it is directly verifiable, i.e explicitly stated. If it's something like the plot of a show then, that's completely fine per MOS:PLOTSOURCE. You would get more helpful responses, if you could specify the context in which you are trying to use it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate They have made a video in Bengali regarding a new TV Show, Gantchhora. They tell names of the people who will be playing which role. In general they are telling about their cast. What, I mean to tell is that, the video is made in Bengali. I understand it, and others who speak Bengali, will also be understand. So, is it considered verifiable? No, one else will be able to verify the facts. ― Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 14:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are an RS for their cast lists. And yes it will pass wp:v, you will not be the only person who who can speak (or read) Bengali, so they can verify it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it is accurately represented (see WP:NONENG) and the language of a source itself has no bearing on whether they are reliable or not. Those who can understand Bengali can verify it, someone's ability or inability to verify a source, does not make something unverifiable. For example, there are many news sources and scholarly sources which are behind paywalls and not accessible to most people, even though they are some of the best sources for a topic. On a sidenote, since it is hosted on Facebook, you would also need to be certain that the account actually belongs to the channel and not any random individual. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate Ok thanks, I understand. ― Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 04:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

What we mean is that Youtube has said "we have verified this is who it claims to be, such as https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCj956IF62FbT7Gouszaj9w.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Thanks, I understand your saying. ― Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 04:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Cefaly supraorbital transcutaneous stimulator

My local TV stations are carrying a lot of ads and infomercials for "Cefaly". You can find them on Amazon as well. Similar devices are sold under the names Nerivio, GammaCore, SpringTMS, etc. See www.cefaly.com

Searching Wikipedia I found Neurostimulation#Transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation, which has two citations to Cephalalgia: An International Journal of Headache.[7][8]

I also found these through a web search:[9][10]

Is Cephalalgia a reliable source for medical claims? Are the claims in the Neurostimulation article supported by reliable sources?

I am skeptical when I hear about a magic cure for migraines that [A] looks like a Star Trek prop, and [B] I hear about in an infomercial, not a doctor's office. 04:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:B892:A3AE:BEB5:E8A9 (talk)

Review articles in MEDLINE-indexed journals, as currently used, are fine sources, and appropriate for the tentative claim Wikipedia relays. But yes, any claim of "magic cure" would be a WP:REDFLAG and require even stronger sourcing. The Scientific Reports paper you link is primary research in an iffy journal, so fails WP:MEDRS and is not usable. Alexbrn (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Biography of Maurice Duplessis

In a GA-class article I'm currently translating from French, I've stumbled upon a rather interesting biography, which is very detailed, about the Premier of Quebec. The problem is, the article is anonymous and the person who is responsible for editing it is some priest in Shawinigan belonging to the League for Catholic Counter-Reformation, which makes me a little sceptical of whether it is a reliable source. I expect it to be biased in favour of Maurice Duplessis (he was a conservative and strongly supportive of the Catholic Church after all), but my thoughts are more about reliability as a source, and, if unusable for the text, whether it's OK to include it in external links.

I would also like you to decipher the "RCC" and "RC" at the bottom of the biogram. Thanks, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There are two publications that are likely to be RCC and/or RC. The first one is the blog of Renaissance Catholique au Canada, which published its n° 257 in November 2021. The second is the Renaissance Catholique magazine, which seems to have published its n° 165 in January-February 2021 [11]. As for the reliability: well, the French article, which is pretty well-sourced, states that it's a far-right nationalist "secte" (translatable to "cult"). Not sure it's the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" we are looking for 🙃. See also Georges de Nantes, whose face is on the front page of their website. JBchrch talk 00:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Maurice Duplessis was a very prominent, well-known, highly controversial politician in Quebec and Canada. There are multiple biographies of his life and influence written in French and English. There is absolutely no need to use a very dubious source such as this. As you indicate. I don’t doubt that the author will have got the basic facts right, but that is not the point. Better sources for these are available so use them Slp1 (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot, will notify frwiki about this (edit: already notified) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, including the persecution of religious minorities. —PaleoNeonate – 18:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Fountain of youth pill

A buddy of mine is all exited about this:

• "Fountain of youth" pill shows ability to dramatically increase longevity in mice

Which led me to this:

• The flavonoid procyanidin C1 has senotherapeutic activity and increases lifespan in mice
• PDF version of the above

My immediate reaction was that I would have heard about such a "Fountain of youth pill" from a well-known reliable source, not some random webpage's clickbait.

To help me give my friend a good answer, I would like to hear opinions about the general reliability of studyfinds.org, the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Shanghai, and the journal Nature Metabolism. Can any of them be trusted for as sources for medical breakthroughs? I already know about not relying on a single study, but is the study even legit? The ethics declaration[12] is especially interesting.

Our article on Grape seed extract says "Grape seed extract is sold in dietary supplement form and claimed to have numerous health benefits, none of which is supported by sufficient medical evidence" and cites this[13], but this page

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7054588/

makes it sound like a miracle cure.

14:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:112B:2AF6:FEE5:339D (talk)

You need to read wp:v, the last source doe not make it seem like a cure for anything, its makes it sound like it aids recovery, after other interventions.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure your first source passes wp:medrs.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not; just a primary mouse study. Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

My first feeling is that the site is reliable, but I am not sure. I didn't like the many advertisements all over the page. This tells me that is prone to sensationalism and click-baits. Why wont your buddy cite the article at nature metabolism instead? Cinadon36 14:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

All of the new sources mentioned above are not reliable sources, per WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: yes, it clearly fails WP:MEDRS but for nor med topics, it could be ok. Cinadon36 06:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

What would it be used for, if not the medical claims being made?Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It's impossible to infer anything in relation to humans with any of that... —PaleoNeonate – 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Fandom.com Wiki Should be eligible for use as a Reference under some circumstances

Hello!

I'm of the belief that Fandom.com Wiki pages should be allowed to be cited in References in certain cases.

A blanket ban on them all for References seems extreme. For many niche or cult television shows they frequently have some of the best info around.

A good example being Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki, which is one of the best sources of information for that series.

Further, we already allow External links to Fandom.com sites, like the aforementioned Memory Alpha at the bottom of all the Trek pages. That's a pretty clear implication that they are useful to some extent.

The use case I've recently had is that a wiki page for a kid's show, Paw Patrol, had a more detailed synopsis & crucially a complete cast list with the actor listed whose article I was trying to include the Reference for.

Neither our Wikipedia page nor IMDB have complete cast lists with the actor listed.

I wanted to include the simple Reference to the Paw Patrol Wiki to confirm that the actor was in the mentioned episode.

There appears to be no other sources to back it up.

I guess one could go to edit the existing Paw Patrol page to include all the available info but that seems unnecessarily circuitous & beyond my scope of interest.

I should point out I actually did due diligence & went to the trouble of checking the episode in question & the actor is indeed listed. So I know the information is correct.

The page edits in question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melanie_Leishman&action=history

I've tried including the References & had it deleted. I then re-worded to specifically point out it was an detailed cast list & synopsis link, Deleted again I reverted that deletion & asked to discuss with the Editor only for them to unilaterally revert a third time, something I was under the impression we were not supposed to do.

This repeated deletion is my first interaction with another Editor here & it's not been a fun one.

I could understand if I was wanting to cite a Fandom.com site to prove an outrageous assertion like George Washington was a cannibal but I just want to use one as a Reference for proof of an actor's role.

I believe context should play a role, as seemingly indicated on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources Page.

I'm not looking to make waves here, all I wanted to do was try & help by expanding some articles & not get caught up in bureaucracy. I was actually having fun until this broke out & over something so trivial. :(

Any help & thoughts appreciated.

LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The source can be edited by anyone so it can never be a reliable source. At best, you can hope the page cites sources that you can research to also use here. Slywriter (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hard no. It does not have any reigning editorial policy, fact checking, or review mechanism that ensures it can behave as a factual, reliable, secondary source. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry you've had a bad editing experience over it, but yeah, it really isn't a kind of source that's usable for our purposes. The basic problem is that for all that we can tell, people can get away with saying anything there. (Honestly, I don't know why we have so many things in "External links" that could never, ever be promoted to actual references, particularly when they just confuse people about what references are acceptable. But that's a discussion for a different day, probably.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

As a note, while you cannot use fandom for casting info, you can use the episode itself for a cast role as long as the credits include that role, though this is a primary source and not a sign of notability. You can use {{Cite episode}} to cite the episode itself. --Masem (t) 18:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replies!

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, does that mean we are utterly unreliable?

IMDB can also be edited by anyone & can & has had incorrect info.

So we can External link to a Fandom.com site but not use it for a reference?

So I could theoretical add an external link to a Fandom.com site to a Wikipedia page (as the Star Trek pages have) & point to that for the cast info & that would be within rules.

Sorry but that's a bit, odd, isn't it?

If it's forbidden as a simple cast list Reference because it is untrusted, how is it suitable as an External link?

Take care!

LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not (according to its policies) an RS WP:RSPWP.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it was, there would be serious circular and WP:CITOGENESIS issues, —PaleoNeonate – 18:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hard no. Per above. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:USERGEN explains why this source is unacceptable, —PaleoNeonate – 18:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding!

But we can & do hyperlink to a Wiki page which is essentially the same thing as Referencing.

The info we hyperlink to at Wikipedia can be changed after we've linked to it just as at Fandom.com.

I'm not really getting why References are treated as something so different to any link to relevant info.

Especially when it's for basic a reference like a cast list.

To my mind a Reference link should be looked at in context, what it is trying to prove? If the subject is not controversial then it should not be held to such a prohibitively high standard.

As mentioned, niche TV shows frequently have the best info on fan made Wikis.

I'd trust Memory Alpha on Trek info over pretty much any other source. I'd never trust just one source though. :)

Take care,

LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there!

"WP:USERGEN explains why this source is unacceptable"

But the guidance also stresses the importance of context:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#How_to_use_this_list

"Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia."

Which aligns with what I'm saying, for non contentious things, this should be allowed as a Reference.

LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

No it is not, we hyperlink to a wiki page when we want to take the reader to a page with more information on that subject. What it is not is a cite. RS is RS, it is not negitiable or bendable. You have been given your answer, it is not an RS, and that should now be the end of it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

LooksGreatInATurtleNeck 2 comments. Firstly, please write in paragraphs rather than in bulleted sentences, as it makes it harder to read and clutters the screen unnecessarily. Secondly, WP:USERGEN is part of a WP guideline, and so you need to show an exceptional need for the source in order to justify using fandom as a reliable source. If niche TV shows have the best info on fan made wikis, that probably means that information is not notable enough for Wikipedia, not that fan made wikis are reliable. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not the same thing as referencing. In that regard, the hyperlinks are more akin to external links, except they are internal. If you were writing an article about an actor and wanted to say they were in a particular movie you cannot use <ref>[[Movie Name]]</ref> to confirm that fact even if the article about the movie mentions them by name. I don't know if that's the best example, but I hope it helps. --SVTCobra 18:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Just been contacted with the implication I'm not supposed to reply back to these to make my case so guess that's it.:(

Thanks for your time.

LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Background Magazine

"For many years, Background Magazine used to be an international magazine (printed on paper)". I haven't been able to find these any print issues of this magazine so is this website reliable? Sikonmina (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

From what they say the connection between the previous print magazine and the online magazine is limited so each source will need to be evaluated separately. And while I would agree any magazine which lies about its history is unlikely to be reliable, what evidence do you actually have the printed magazine doesn't exist? Or "haven't been able to find" how? This seems a fairly specialised magazine which probably had a fairly limited audience. Even considering it probably ended in the internet era, it doesn't seem particularly surprising it's hard to find much about it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is a scan of a printed 1995 edition. Ostensibly uploaded by owners. Thincat (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

WorldCat listings are here and here. If any of the writers/editors were or are notable music critics, then their views/reviews might be reliable and warranted, as an attributed POV. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

George Edmundson & Books on Demand?

• Edmundson, George (21 September 2018). History of Holland. BoD – Books on Demand. ISBN 978-3-7340-5543-0.

Is this a reliable source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it this? https://archive.org/details/ost-history-historyofholland00edmuuoft / https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14971 / https://archive.org/details/history_of_holland__0707_librivox / -- GreenC 03:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That is likely a public domain reprint of George Edmundson's 1922 book. Edmundson was a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and Royal Historical Society, and Honorary Member of the Dutch Historical Society. It is likely mostly reliable for its time (see WP:OLDSOURCES) and may be useful for covering some historical aspects, but may be now outdated, and/or superseded by more recent work. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Using an archived version of a source vs. the current version of a source

I'm a bit gobsmacked that this is even a question, but apparently it is? Am I wrong? We're having a discussion at Talk:Nirvana (band)#The recent genre dispute about including or removing "hard rock" from the genre field in the infobox. It was in the article, and the citation used contained a link to an archived version from 2017 and the current page as it appears now. The "hard rock" genre namedrop has disappeared as Allmusic.com has revised its entry on the band in the ensuing 4 years, but some editors still want to fall back on archived version as a valid citation. There's a question whether Allmusic is even usable here, per WP:ALLMUSIC, but even if it was, can an old version of an article trump the current one? Zaathras (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Genre labels suck, pretty much. There are endless varieties and combinations, no clear consensus in sources, or with wiki editors. Artists often embrace or reject them (Cobain rejected the "Grunge" label). The best you can do is reach consensus on the talk pages. One compromise method is if there is disagreement remove from the lead section and infobox, but include in the body. -- GreenC 05:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Joshua Project

Is the demographic data published by the Joshua Project reliable? Alaexis_¿question? 13:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's been discussed many times in the past Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#Joshuaproject.net,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 226#Duane Alexander Miller, Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Joshuaproject.net,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80#Reliability of the Joshua Project as source,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 74#Joshua_Project,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27#Is Joshua Project reliable?,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Joshua Project. As far as I can gauge it, the consensus has been that it's unreliable. It's still being used so I'd like to add it to the WP:RSP list. Alaexis_¿question? 13:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

From the above I agree that an RSP entry is a good idea. A potential summary may include: Religious advocacy group, cites unreliable data sources. Often the RSP talk page is enough to agree on what to write... —PaleoNeonate – 03:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. You cannot trust any of that website's claimed population numbers for ethnic groups even to an order of magnitude. The real population might be 0 because there is literally no such ethnic group: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawa Pesisir Lor. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Acc. to evidence presented in previous discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Very obviously unreliable. Attempting to use it as a source is absurd. Please do add it to RSP. I like PaleoNeonate's suggested summary. Bishonen | tålk 11:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC).

  I've already added it based on the previous discussions, after a request at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Joshua Project. Tell me if you think anything in the entry needs to be changed/added. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Medical News Today a reliable source for biomedical claims?

Articles seem to be fact checked and include references to many reputable papers/journals. Can they be considered review articles? Do they meet the WP:MEDRS standard? Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

No. It is useful for peripheral issues, but not WP:BMI. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say it is a good news source for biomedical issues, but it is not WP:MEDRS compliant, because it is not scholarship, does not have peer review, and is not, as far as I can tell, written or edited mainly by content experts. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems articles are reviewed by content experts. I see for each article they report who reviewed it and state: All Medical News Today content is medically reviewed or fact checked to ensure that it is as accurate as possible. We have strict sourcing guidelines and only link to other reputable media sites, educational institutions, and, whenever possible, peer-reviewed studies. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is a link to editorial process. It seems they might fall into a new category of source compared to what we are used to. A sort of hybrid between a peer reviewed publication and a traditional news article? Alexbrn were you aware of this when you commented? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of what WP:MEDRS says about medical journalism, and answered your question accordingly. What content do you want to source to this? Alexbrn (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

BBC video on Cage YouTube Channel for use on Draft:Tauqir Sharif

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r04o5GPErPw&t=15s

This video is quite important to the section on 'Citizenship deprivation'. It was originally published by the BBC but is now found on Cage's YouTube channel. Rfc please, if it is therefore suitable for use in the above mentioned section. Amirah talk 16:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Why not use the BBC?Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no reason not to use BBC, but that it is not to be found on the BBC YouTube channel. Amirah talk 16:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If you are going to cite it, just cite the original BBC broadcast, but do NOT link directly to the YouTube video, as it is a likely copyvio. "Courtesy links" to sources are nice, but not required. You just need to have a properly formatted citation such that someone sufficiently motivated could find the original source. --Jayron32 16:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for this. It's answered my question perfectly. Amirah talk 16:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Olympedia

It was discussed before here, but I think it should be added to the source list so people can know if it is reliable or not. Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

We don't maintain lists except where the source has been controversial and generated repeated discussions, the ONLY purpose of the WP:RSP list is to stop us from having to re-litigate those sources over and over. The list is not exclusive, and a source does not need to be listed to be considered EITHER reliable or unreliable. Under normal circumstances, you're allowed to apply the criteria at WP:RS all by yourself and you don't need permission to use a source that is reliable. --Jayron32 18:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of Somoy TV

Previously discussed, no consensus was made. Hence trying to revive it. See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#Reliability of Somoy News. -- Tame (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it used in WP? Cinadon36 09:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cinadon36, the website is used as a reference in numerous articles. -- Tame (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wjhonson, pinging an admin since reviving attempt also seems to go in vain. -- Tame (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, it does appear that Somoy News is not a reliable source. Surely, if a news article rises to the level of use in WP, the same facts can be found elsewhere.Wjhonson (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

necrometrics.com

This source is authored by some amateur historian. Jstor.org and google.scholar provide no reviews on his book. The book was cited 5 times by the sources that have just one citation. The online version was cited 19 times by low level publications. The author's methodology is simple: he combines whatever he could find on the topic (a number of deaths) and calculates a median value of published figures. This approach is a more primitive version of Rummel's approach. Rummel, who, in contrast to White, is an expert in statistical methods, used a more sophisticated approach, thus he included only independent sources (i.e. the publications that presented figures obtained independently from each other: if different publications cite the same figure, Rummel took only one of them). In contrast, White, being an amateur, does not apply this filter to the data. That can be easily seen, because he cites Rummel.

To understand how ridiculous is the idea to cite Rummel for this purpose, one must keep in mind that Rummel did the same job as White, but in a more professional way: his data are already the median value of previously published figures. The fact that White does not understand and uses Rummel as an independent data point implies his insufficient professionalism.

Furthermore, White performs no critical analysis of sources, he just collects whatever he could find on each concrete topic. In summary, the quality of White's data cannot be higher (and, usually, it is even lower) that the quality of the data collected by Wikipedians themselves.

In connection to that, I am asking if we really need to use the source authored by this amateur, who is doing essentially what every Wikipedian can do: collect the data and calculate a median value? I propose not to use White. Instead, I propose to use the sources he cites and use them along with other high quality secondary sources. I think we should respect themselves and not use the data assembled by amateurs.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Help me find deprecated sources

I just split out an article from another page and the page creation process triggered edit filter 869 for deprecated sources, but the log report doesn’t tell me which sources are deprecated. Could someone help me figure this out? Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP should have the complete list of deprecated sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I've looked through the sources and nothing jumps out to me that's listed at either RSP or WP:DEPS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I seem to recall that the edit filter used to return the name of the deprecated source. This was like a year ago. Did that process change recently or is it just hidden on my end? Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, you can use WP:UPSD, which will highlight deprecated sources amongst others. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

In this case, AlterNet is the culprit. WP:RSP only lists it as generally unreliable however, not deprecated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Afghan Chronicle

I would like your thoughts and opinion on the source that I am about to discuss. I came across this source on couple of articles related to Durrani Empire Emperors. Here is the link to the entire book/source. [14]. At first glance, I didn't pay much attention but when I started reading it for verification, I found the book to be written with great prejudice against non-Muslims (calling them Kafirs and infidels), bias, exaggerated, and has misrepresentation of facts. So it led me to read the introduction of book where details about the author and the history behind the book is given and this is where I realized why this source is highly unreliable as the book was politically motivated. This book was written on the order of Emir (King/Emperor) of Afghanistan, Habibullah Khan, by "Afghan Court Chronicle", Faiz Mohammed Kateb Hazara, who was originally a copyist and was hired by Emir Habibullah Khan as a scribe and copyist. Here are some details directly from the introduction that proves its unreliability.

1. The book was Amir’s idea for commissioning a history of Afghanistan and his choosing Fayz Muhammad to produce it. (xxxii). We will probably never know why the Prince (before becoming Emir) settled on this Hazarah Shiʿi (talking about Fayz), who was then in his late thirties or early forties, as the best candidate to write the history of Afghanistan. It seems on the surface an unusual choice. (xxxiii)

2. Reason behind commissioning a history book: Hasan Kakar has written that it was in part disgust at the “licentious life” of the amir that gave rise to a brief and abortive constitutional movement in Kabul. But Habib Allah Khan was also a very canny politician and it was sound political instinct that led him to commission a history of the country, in part to create a story of the past that gave meaning to his father’s brutal attempts at forging a nation, and in part to validate his own tenuous position as absolute monarch. All we really know for certain about Habib Allah’s plan are his own words, as recorded by Fayz Muhammad, at the beginning of the Sirāj al-tawārīkh. (xxxiv)

3. The amir expected to have full control over the finished product and to review the work in progress. We know with reasonable certainty how this control was exerted in the case of the third volume of the Sirāj. The Tuḥfat, however, and the first two volumes of Sirāj were reviewed, edited or censored, and sent back for revisions somewhat differently. (xxxvii)

4. In the case of Tuḥfat al-Ḥabīb and the first two volumes of Sirāj al-tawārīkh, it appears that Fayz Muhammad submitted the volumes entire and in a final draft and these were what were read and edited by the amir and others and by copy editors whose specialties were the Arabic and Persian usages. (xxxvii)

5. Unpleasant truths were systematically eliminated. (xcvi) An attempt would be made to control not just his output but the very sources to which Fayz Muhammad had access.(xxxviii)
Given the scope of the work and Fayz Muhammad’s proximity to people at court, he probably also received many more solicited and unsolicited anecdotes and much advice as he worked. (xci)

6. Biased Sources: These may also have been the same men Amir Habib Allah assigned to keep an eye on the work and its progress. Fayz Muhammad names three of them “and others.” The three named were Sardar Muhammad Yusuf Khan, the nineteenth son of Amir Dust Muhammad Khan; Qazi Saʿd al Din Khan, son of Qazi ʿAbd al-Rahman Khan; and Sardar Nur ʿAli Khan, the son of Sardar Shayr ʿAli Khan Qandahari. All three were Barakzaʾi Durranis. The first and third were of the Muhammadzaʾi branch of the Barakzaʾi and the first and second had already been involved as supervisors of the Tuḥfat al-Ḥabīb.

7. The reader should be aware that Fayz Muhammad always had some one looking over his shoulder as he worked. These included the people that have been identified above as well as others not identified, no doubt including the official(s) in charge of the archives and any number of kibitz ers and courtiers who might have thought they had something to add or some change to suggest as Fayz Muhammad’s work progressed. (xcvi)

8. The amir himself would have been obliged to read more carefully for errors of commission or interpretation. (xcvii)

9. Example of censorships by the Amir when reviewing the draft: The first of these substantial deletions is worth repeating here because of the consequences it had on text that followed. While he (ʿAbd al-Rahman Khan) was on the march a letter from Griffin reached him saying, “Come to Kabul as quickly as you can and adorn the throne of authority.” In reply to this letter, he wrote, “I have high hopes of the English government and I sincerely offer my friendship. Yet the people of Afghanistan consider it one of the habits and tendencies of the great (English) government that the words of a person whom they don’t know negotiating about their wel fare (those words) often bear no fruit. The people who are with me wanted to know before allowing a response to his [Griffin’s] emissary six things: first, where will the borders of Afghanistan be? Second, will Qandahar be part of Afghanistan or separated from it? Third, will an Englishman reside in Afghani stan? Fourth, will the English government expect me to take up arms against her enemies? Fifth, what benefits will the English government promise me and the people of Afghanistan? Sixth, in return for such benefits, what services does the English government expect that the answer to these questions will impose on my fellow tribesmen and co-religionists as obligations so that I can obtain their trust to the extent that will make it possible to fulfill these things. Then I will seek the approval of these terms which are possible to fulfill and although the English government is not so in need (now), one day when the necessary occasions arise I will serve that government along with my people. The end. By the time Amir Habib Allah Khan was reading the text, it may have sounded far too solicitous of English interests. He did not want his father to appear to have been willing to bargain away border claims, hint at a willingness to give up Qandahar, or worst of all, to show himself ready to fight with the English against its enemies (i.e. Russia). But having deleted this he then had to delete all the references that follow concerning Griffin’s replies to the six points raised by the letter. These are major deletions totaling some seven pages of manuscript and more than 1,600 words. (xcix)

10. Here is another example of censorship: We find a detail in volume two deleted for no explicable reason. (Again, the deletion is in italics.) “Meantime, Yar Muhammad, a merchant who resided at Tashqurghan, came to Sardar ʿAbd al-Rahman Khan with many splendid gifts, an act which caused the sardar to wonder, ‘Why, of all the people of that region would this person come to me bearing gifts?” Eventually, he discovered that Shayr Dil Khan Luynab, a former governor of Balkh, had entrusted a sum of money—four thousand Russian tillas, ten thousand Bukharan tillas, sixty thousand Kabuli rupees, two thousand balīt, each one of which was worth one hundred rupees, from government coffers (the treasury of Balkh) to this merchant and the merchant himself having informed the sardar of this, the sardar sent Faramarz Khan, a ghulam-slave of his, with the man to bring all the money from Tashqurghan.” What would have possessed someone to delete this section? Was it because he checked the documents and could not find these details? Or did the episode somehow reflect badly on Amir Habib Allah Khan’s father because the passage implies that he accepted a large sum of government money for his own use? This is a general problem with explaining the deletions. It is not clear what motivated the amir or the other readers to remove what seem often to be wholly innocuous passages while allowing to stand the long detailed sections on his father’s brutal mistreatment of the Hazarahs. (xcviii)

11. Drafting the Sirāj, presenting it for review, re-writing it to satisfy the reviewers and the amir, and then dealing with the typesetter would have kept Fayz Muhammad fully occupied. He was also assiduously collecting material for the projected volume four, the volume to be devoted to Habib Allah Khan’s reign. (xlix)

So based on some of the points that I provided directly from the introduction of the book, would you consider this source reliable or unreliable? MehmoodS (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Unless I'm misunderstanding, the book you linked to is a translation of an early-20th-century text, and thus not an RS due to its age. Levivich 19:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's not necessarily that simple, see comments at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_360#Age_of_a_history_book._How_old_is_considered_too_old_to_be_cited?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Levivich Correct. Its a translation of an early 20th century text. Thank you for your input. MehmoodS (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I am certainly not an expert on Afghan history (or pretty much anything else) but I think it would depend on how this book is used. Bias is not necessarily automatic disqualification. Nor is age. And if I am reading you correctly, the censorship was through omission and not addition of falsehoods. You don't give examples of how this book is used as a citation. But as concept, it is conceivable it could be used as a source. It might have some facts that are nowhere else to be found. If stacked up against better source which contradicts it, it should probably lose. It really depends on how it is used. --SVTCobra 02:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• SVTCobra Censorship was by removing unpleasant views. See point number 5. Point number 9 is an example. The source is being used as reference to describe battle events as well as the number of strength and casualities. Of course, the events and the numbers have been overly exaggerated to make own community look impressive in the public view. That was the intention of the king anyways. Modern historians have provided realistic numbers for the same events. Such as in the book, it states that 30000 Indians were killed at a battle during the capture of Multan, but modern scholars such as Hari Ram Gupta and others say that it was 3000. So its a clear example of exaggeration when writing the book where the writer was overlooked by others in the Afghan court of the king. See point number 7 and 11 that I mentioned from the introduction pages. MehmoodS (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Eh? This is at the very best a primary source. The age is certainly a disqualifier, in this case there is not even an attempt at using any form of historiographical methodology but instead it's a non-independent court chronicle, i.e a piece of propaganda. Outside exceptional circumstances, this shouldn't be used at all. One should be relying on modern scholarship for historical topics not whatever junk that may be available. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate Agreed. Same thoughts. MehmoodS (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

MehmoodS, this particular source cannot be considered as reliable IMO. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Demote People magazine

People magazine copied the Daily Mirror on a story that was cited on Cate Blanchett#Personal life. Many other websites copied the Daily Mirror also. I found Wikipedia:Reliable sources that contradict that story. Demote People magazine. ... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about this article? And if so, what is the relevant Daily Mirror article? --SVTCobra 10:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• It is unlikely that a single error (even if it was an error) would lead to any source being demoted from its reliability status. I am also unclear on which information is an issue? There is a single cite to People Magazine, this one, and it itself cites the The Courier-Mail, a reliable Australian newspaper, and not the Daily Mirror. Can you be more specific over which citation you are challenging? --Jayron32 13:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• No. A publication should generally not be "demoted" based on a single small piece. MarioGom (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• I almost feel like that should be at the top of RSN somewhere - we keep seeing people coming in here demanding that a source have it entire status changed based on a single article from them that they find objectionable, without even any secondary sourcing backing up their reading or supporting the idea that it changed their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:RS doesn't mean "never makes mistakes ever", and it's particularly useless to try and evaluate sources based on a subjective reading of one article or an editor's personal argument that it was wrong with no secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• It makes no difference; people who are that narrow-minded are unlikely to RTFM anyways; warning people not to do specifically idiotic things only reaches people who are non-idiotic enough to not do it in the first place. --Jayron32 14:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Query about new source for Prehistoric religion

I found this recently added by User:PSYCHREL: "However, reconstructions of ancestral character states using time-calibrated supertrees based on published phylogenetic trees and linguistic classification indicated that the earliest trait of religion, present in the most recent common ancestor of modern hunter-gatherers, was animism. Following the development of belief in an afterlife, shamanism and ancestor worship developed."

Besides the fact that you seem to need to be an expert to understand it (see Ancestral reconstruction for an explanation and a mention of its flaws and of course Phylogenetic tree) the only paper I can see discussing it is this[15] which doesn't mention the claim. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

Thanks for your comment. I can glady rewrite it as to make it more consumable.

Here are the sources in which the the results are identified:

Mace, R., & Holden, C. J. (2005). A phylogenetic approach to cultural evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(3), 116–121.

Lewis, P. O. (2001). A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Systematic Biology, 50(6), 913–925.

Another source that is in-press is:

Basava, K., Zhang, H., & Mace, R. (2021). A phylogenetic analysis of revolution and afterlife beliefs. Nature human behaviour, 10.1038/s41562-020-01013-4. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01013-4

Also, thank you for attaching the Dunbar (2020) article, I have not yet read it, and will do so now.

I will also attach the link to the Peoples et al. (2016) article that can be accessed for free: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12110-016-9260-0.pdf PSYCHREL (talk) Austin PSYCHREL (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This strikes me as more in the nature of "interesting thought experiment" than it is "verifiable knowledge." But, of course, with infinite specialization, those lines can blur. I am going to try to dig in a bit, but my gut says probably not something we should be presenting as established fact. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't recognise the other authors, but the late Frank W. Marlowe was a distinguished cultural anthropologist[16] and the journal Human Nature seems perfectly fine. Ancestral state reconstruction is an accepted method of the cultural evolution school of anthropology, e.g. in studies of the evolution of kinship: [17][18][19][20]. So yes, I would say it's a reliable source, just not presented particularly accessibly and perhaps a little bit on the primary side for a broad-concept article like prehistoric religion (but with 142 citations according to Google Scholar, it shouldn't be too hard to contextual). – Joe (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

As the primary author of the article in its current state, I had the same assessment that the journal, author/s known to me, and methodology were acceptable, but that the statement was very...certain...for its context. I tweaked it to a more conservative claim that Psychrel tweaked in turn (in an edit that maybe shouldn't have been marked minor, but I give leeway to new editors for that and my watchlist shows minor edits anyway) to this, which I'm letting stand, although anyone is free to work on the wording further. (I also modified the cite style a bit, closer to that in the rest of the article, per WP:CITEVAR on keeping a consistent one in an established article.) Vaticidalprophet 09:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Since I read a lot about biology and anthropology: linking culture and biology has always been controversial and phylogeny generally means trees of sequence organism taxonomic groups (and there are whole books about that including about the limits of biology to explain culture). If phylogeny here is meant to suggest genetics, rather than only being a metaphor for sub-branches of culture, it should probably be avoided without secondary sources putting those in their theoretical context. If it is a metaphor for a sequence, it may have merit in the history of religion... There obviously was a point where the mix of symbolic thinking and factors like fear resulted in the development of religiosity (and animism and fertility cults are indeed considered to be very early expressions, before the development of agriculture and more organized religion). I can understand the "most recent common ancestor" in this context, but it's still strange to see that terminology used. I suggest to at least make sure that it is framed a context where phylogeny including its vocabulary are borrowed, to avoid suggesting genetic links. —PaleoNeonate – 11:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:PaleoNeonate and appreciate the work being done to modify the wording. I an also wary of the term "most recent common ancestor" not just because it can be confusing and usually suggests genetic links, but because IMHO it implies a lot more certainty than is warranted. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Andrew Ford, In Defence of Classical Music, ABC Books

Any thoughts about the reliability of this source? (The published name is ... really unhelpful for my half-hearted efforts to determine if they're a serious outfit.) It's currently the only independent source being used on the BLP Ross Bolleter. --JBL (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

ABC Books is part of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (see also ABC Commercial). The ABC is Australia's national public broadcaster. One can be confident that this publisher is at least as reliable as any serious generalist publisher. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The OP might want to consult Andrew Ford (composer). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Obviously the sourcing in that article is substandard (although the above seems to answer the OP with "the source is reliable"). However, the COI ("close connection") tag should be removed. The editor concerned made a small number of edits in April 2014 and has not edited since. That does not warrant a tag. Johnuniq (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for your feedback. My takeaway is that this article, despite all of its obvious problems, has one legitimate source and quite possibly meets GNG; so conceivably a good article could in principle be written about the subject. Since I (obviously) know nothing about the area, I will just leave it be. Johnuniq, you are of course welcome to remove the tag (the Who Wrote That? tool attributes to User:Rossbolleter roughly 1/3rd of the article, and the number of edits to the article since 2014 is small, but I am happy to defer if you think it's not a good reason to keep the tag around). [I am not watching this page, but will respond if pinged.] --JBL (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

An article about sexual consent in Bollywood

Planning to refer article 'Rape Jokes In Popular Culture: The Violation Of Consent Is Not Funny In Any Context~ Jyni Verma ' in Sexual consent related articles.

• Discussion over here might be referred @ WP: Women related project talk pages.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a op-ed, as indicated by the content of the article (As a society, we tend to validate rape jokes and continue to give space for them) and the fact that its author is not a professional journalist. Per WP:RSEDITORIAL, it's not reliable for factual claims; it is only reliable for the attributed opinions of its author, provided that they are WP:DUE. JBchrch talk 05:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Enciclopedia d'arte italiana

Is the Enciclopedia d'arte italiana a relibale source for biographical articles? The article we have on it says that Entries are edited by a scientific technical committee. It's website https://www.enciclopediadarte.eu/eng/info.asp says that In this contest artists are allowed to introduce their biography, photos of works with their quotations, reviews and events during the past years.Each artists could decide on his own the literature to publish. Vexations (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd say no - sounds like a vanity publication. Might be acceptable for dates of birth, & such like. Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yes: " Three possible admissions:

COMMON MEMBER – € 120 1^year - € 100 the following years

It offers 1500-character line equal to about 18 lines + 2 photos of works.Inside you can include biography, reviews, exhibition you attended, artistic characteristic and everything you desire to better define your own activity.It is very important to state personal reference: address, telephone number, e-mail and website if you have" Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The entry is written by the artist concerned, with no fact checking. We can not even guarantee the most basic biographical data as people may lie about all kinds of personal information for whatever reason. I would suggest it is only reliable for the artists' opinion of their own work. Having said that, the entries will likely be written in the third person, so we shouldn't really cite it as their opinion, as the EdAI article pretends it is written by a disinterested third party. Just avoid it. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of theaerodrome.com

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

---

Which of the following best describes the reliability of theaerodrome.com?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

The website theaerodrome.com is currently referenced in over 500 1500 articles chiefly related to World War I aviation ([21] search), including articles assessed as GA-class (e.g. Friedrich Ritter von Röth). It has been previously discussed on WP:RSN twice, first here and later (very briefly) here. A recent attempt to establish local consensus at WT:MILHIST was closed with instructions to discuss the topic here. -Ljleppan (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC); upd. reference count 07:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

NB: I'm new to both RfCs and WP:RSN, so please let me know if I have made any procedural mistakes, if this is not the proper format/forum, or you have a suggestion on how to better phrase the options above. -Ljleppan (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note that 80 of the cites are actually to the website's forum (see theaerodrome.com/forum  ) which should be removed regardless of whether the main website is deemed reliable. The forum cites are on my list of sites to remove. FDW777 (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The website appears to be a WP:SELFPUBLISHed resource, with an anonymous editorial team (i.e. the contact email is simply webmaster@... and there is no page listing the editorial staff). The website's main content consists of pages for individual aviators and aircraft models. Notably, the pages for individual aviators and airplanes do not contain by-lines (e.g. [22] and [23]). As such, this main content is effectively anonymously authored. In addition to the general anonymity of the editorial team, there is no indication of what the editorial or fact-checking processes related to the published content are. Some of the website's subpages list more general articles, which are hosted on the website's forums (see e.g. section "Articles" on this page). This publishing method blurs the line between user-generated content and staff-authored editorial content. While these articles contain by-lines, at least some of them appear to be copies of content published originally by 3rd parties in unrelated venues, e.g. this article being this report also available at Project Gutenberg and these articles being scanned copies of books/booklets. I have not investigated whether any of these constitute WP:LINKVIO. Some general articles appear to be original content and are published with by-lines (e.g. [24]), but there is no indication that the same authors are behind the unattributed pages related to the individual aviators, aircraft or medals listings -Ljleppan (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that of the two scanned books/magazines, one is a US book published in 1919 and so is OK to link to as it's public domain (how useful it is as a reference is a different matter), while the final one is a copy of a 1990 magazine and so most definitely isn't ok.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: Not a reliable source -- a self-published resource by a non-expert; no indications of a reliable publishing process or fact checking. The site appears to be someone's personal project. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• I followed a few links, and what we have here is another hobbyist site, with authors like "Dan San Abbot" and "John". No evidence of an editorial board that offers oversight, etc. Option 3: not to be used. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. This is a non-professional self-publishing exercise, AKA a fansite. So, generally unreliable. It could be primary-source reliable for certain things, e.g. an interview they publish with an aviator might contain some WP:ABOUTSELF statement, and the interview would likely be good enough for that. But it's not a reliable source for general claims about the world, like airplane specs or someone's achievements.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. Tweaked version from my contribution to the Milhist discussion. I don't think that this website meets the requirements of WP:RS. All three (author, publisher and source) need to be reliable. If one argues they are rarely wrong about a detail, if that is accurate, that only meets the third requirement. We still need to know about the author and the publisher, and I can't see anything above that says that the authors (obviously they vary, but only a couple of them are published aviation authors) and the website as publisher (reputation for quality copy-editing, fact-checking etc) are reliable. I recommend that it is considered unreliable and deprecated. If the website has list of sources used for a given article on a pilot (which it does in some cases), then examine those listed secondary sources (assuming they themselves are reliable) and use them to source the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. The main criticisms aired above stack up. Also, there are idiosyncracies in the Glossary, such as; "Barrage balloon: A small spherical captive balloon raised as a protection against aeroplanes." where aerodynamically-shaped kite balloons were also used, "Airship: A motor-driven balloon of elongated form; should not be applied to "heavier-than-air" craft." where the use of "airship" to describe a large aeroplane was common enough up until the WWI period, or "Fin: A fixed vertical plane generally fitted in front of the rudder..." where (when fitted, often not the case in WWI) it is more usual to put it the other way round and say that the (fixed) fin provides a mounting point or hinge for the rudder. So even if the claims of respectable oversight are true, their peer review process leaves much to be desired. Nevertheless, it is a useful site and should be acceptable to support and expand on content cited from other, more reliable sources. In other words, it is a source where any given citation must be taken on its individual merits; does a byline identify the author, is the context for the cited factoid appropriate, etc. The forum, of course, is off-limits, and so too should the Glossary be. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment, Steelpillow. Just to clarify your position, does your statement the forum, of course, is off-limits extend to the articles linked from the "Articles" box of e.g. this page? Note the addresses of the individual articles are .../forum/.... -Ljleppan (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

    In general, just because a url includes a certain file path, or a certain piece of authoring software is used, this does not define the status of the destination page. These articles are locked out of the forum discussion and logically form part of the static site, which indicates at least a degree of sanity checking by an admin. But a trustworthy author's byline is still necessary. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

    • Of the authors listed in the "articles section, Frank Olynyk is a published author in aviation history, who is a co-author with Chris Shores et al on the multi-part History of the Mediterranean Air War 1940–1945 and would count as a trustworthy author, while the contemporary personal accounts are just being hosted by theaerodrome.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 - I see the site as "generally unreliable", per the comments above. While the site may be useful for finding some information, as well as citations to the same, those citations (when reliable themselves) should be examined and used for in-line verification of content instead of using this site.--John Cline (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - I have visited the site, no author, no "about" sections, it makes me feel that the site is n't build by experts. Cinadon36 05:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, there is no indication that this website is reliable. There is no listed author or team of editors.RCatesby (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Blocked sock. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Reliability of IWMBuzz.com

Source: IWMBuzz.com – partial disclosure of funding here.

Past discussions:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 261#Reliability Of IWMBuzz
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1086#Reliable sources for Article
• Talk:Silsila Badalte Rishton Ka#About reference (iwmbuzz.com)
  • This discussion led to the source being depreciated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources

A few examples for Articles/Content:

• Sonu Nigam lede: "recognized as one of the most versatile singers of all time"
• Atif Aslam lede: "he is often considered one of the best playback singers in the Indian and Pakistani music industries of all times"
• Maharshi_(2019_film) "it was featured on the various year-end best film charts."
• Urvashi Dholakia "The character was described by IWMBuzz as one of the most iconic characters on Indian television."
• Karn Sangini "After 30 episodes the show underwent a complete revamp in the story line.""
• Prashant Narayanan lede: "He was last seen in the Zee5 originals web series Abhay."
• Sanjeev Seth lede: "Currently, he is known for his role of Vishambharnath Maheshwari in Star Plus's Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai and its spin-off Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke."

IWMBuzz.com is used in about 300 articles, sometimes for simple non-controversial verification (filmographies, ratings, awards given by the source itself) but other times for subjective PR-puffing statements for which they have a conflict of interest. I feel that a cautionary yellowlisting at perennial sources with links to the above discussions is warranted, to raise awareness of potential issues. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Orlando Informer reliable

1. Source: Orlando Informer
2. Article: The article Woody (Toy Story) is the one im specifically talking about, but its used in articles like VelociCoaster, Universal Studios Florida, Mario Kart, and The Cat in the Hat
3. Content theme parks

― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to tell if the Orlando Informer is a one-person operation or not. There's no evidence of editorial control. They seem to make their money as an affiliate linking to ticket sales for Universal theme parks, which gives them a conflict of interest and thereby potential bias. So, no not really reliable. I would say other sources should be preferred. I could see them used as a source of last resort (no pun intended) for very basic facts. By that I mean, establishing that a ride exists in a particular park or perhaps which year a ride opened, but not much else. Basically on the level of an SPS or avoid if possible. --SVTCobra 00:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Media Stinger a reliable source

1. Source: Media Stinger
2. Article It looks like it is not used in any articles yet, but im looking to use it
3. Content Video game and movie news

― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The Wire

Source: [[25]] Article: Getatchew Mekurya biography musical artist passed away in 2016 Content: also see talkpage Talk:Getatchew_Mekurya#Contradicting_sources_about_what_he_played_first

The Wire comes with new information about Getatchew Mekurya in 2017, source is based on Terp label which he worked with, it looks reliable source. It claims Nobody in Ethiopia has really seen these pictures or knows about the whole history – just lack of media it contradicts on some points from earlier sources such as the NYT article [[26]] about his early life when he decided to take up the sax, what instruments he played. The Wire comes with new info that i have not seen in other sources such as being an actor in the 50's as a standout.

It's probably not contentious, if i just combine the new findings from Wire with earlier sources, it's just that some of the new findings is only mentioned by The Wire. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Update i would also add i couldn't find Amharic articles that mentions the new findings of The Wire (about alleged acting background, playing the flute, hearing the sax on the radio and then deciding it was the instrument of choice etc).Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The Wire is a very high quality source on music itself, but for details like this that are contradicted elsewhere I might wonder a bit. I would assume the writer repeated what the source told them, but didn't investigate too much further. I'd state it with attribution if using it - David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The Wire is a highly reliable music publication. The claims in their article is not from their research, it comes from a label and a band that worked very close with the subject and I would assume it's more accurate than the NYT obituary given that it's from a source closer to the subject. RoseCherry64 (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The wire is one of the highest quality music publications there is in general, but if two reliable sources contradict then best to use clear attribution and show what sources the reliable sources themselves use. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Are AP and CNN reliable for putting the allegation of the China COVID-19 cover-up in Wikivoice?

Several RSs, including AP, CNN, the BBC and PBS have documented evidence of a Chinese government cover-up of the early outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan. This evidence includes accidentally released and leaked documents from the Chinese government (threatening "harsh punishment" for any scientist sharing data), and secret recordings of WHO officials (like Mike Ryan). How much more evidence do we need in order to call this a cover-up in Wikivoice, like the American cover-up of Japanese war crimes, and to have a page on it as a notable set of allegations, like Allegations of CIA drug trafficking? This is a sister post of a complaint I filed in ANI about the Inappropriate closing of an MR discussion that sought to cover up the cover-up allegation on Wikipedia. Gimiv (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Well as CNN does not say there was a cover up, no (read wp:v).Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I should point out that Gimiv is forum-shopping because they don't like that I've called bullshit on the conspiracy theory cottage that they totally innocently and not suspiciously at all jumped straight into. Sceptre (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There isn't much question about the reliability of CNN or AP. So I'm not sure if this is a question for RSN. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• After glancing over those sources and the talk page discussion, I'm going to guess that the issue people have with the bit you're trying to add is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH and WP:V in general rather than WP:RS. The question isn't whether those sources are generally reliable, the question is whether you are summarizing them accurately and using them appropriately (ie. not in a way that implies things that goes beyond what they specifically state; with appropriate WP:WEIGHT for their focus, etc.) At a glance I'm not seeing them using the words "cover-up" or anything similar in the article text - the one that has the words there at all, the CNN one, specifically quotes them as saying that it was probably not an intentional cover-up. "You can never guarantee 100% transparency. It's not just about any intentional cover-up, you are also constrained with by technology and other issues with a novel virus." Articles saying that the Chinese government was initially secretive and slow to cooperate are not at all the same as articles saying there was some sort of cover-up - the latter implies something specific was being intentionally concealed and is therefore an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim requiring sources that actually say that. I'm not seeing that here at a glance (but, again, it's a better question for eg. WP:NPOVN or WP:FRINGEN or other noticeboards that look at and evaluate what the sources actually say and how closely we're adhering to that in more depth.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of those sources state that there is a cover-up - Although Aquillion, I don't think the CNN source states the opposite; it quotes an individual stating the opposite, but it doesn't make the statement itself. BilledMammal (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It is an awkwardly-worded quote (so I would be opposed to using it in the article for that reason), but in context I read it as being largely dismissive, ie. saying that China may have downplayed the severity early on even when they knew better but that this was part of a larger chain of failures by everyone involved across multiple nations. It absolutely is not talking about anything to do with the pandemic's origins, which is the article's focus, and would therefore be inappropriate or misused in that context. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that these sources report allegations of a cover-up, rather than that they themselves allege a cover-up. They are clearly reliable sources so this is an issue of how they are used rather than of reliability and so this might be better addressed at a different noticeboard. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion, BilledMammal, and Bobfrombrockley: several RS do call the outbreak cover-up a cover-up in their own voice, including the BBC and the Guardian, as I said in the RM. Its amazing how the RM discussion turned into an AfD frenzy, and I'm not sure how it'll be closed, but I'm sure it'll be back (like that other page). Most RS reporting on this are based on an exclusive report by Nick Paton Walsh of CNN on Dec 1 2020, and a report by AP on Dec 30, which are based on accidentally released and leaked Chinese government documents. These documents were shared with the BBC and PBS which they featured in a 90 minute documentary, titled 54 Days in the UK and "China’s COVID Secrets" in the USA. Anyone claiming the Chinese government actions can't be characterised as cover-up per WP:SYNTH, needs to read policy again, and also read WP:NOTSYNTH. LondonIP (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Others have covered the fact that these sources do not say there was a cover-up, but I want to raise another issue. There has been a proliferation of these sorts of WP:POVFORK articles, which look like they're written in order to give certain political views Wikipedia's imprimatur. They often cite real sources, but they weave them together in order to try to make an argument that's not clear from the sources. Anyone could write an article entitled, US COVID-19 cover-up, citing Trump's statement to Woodward that he (Trump) intentionally downplayed the seriousness of the virus ([27]). But should Wikipedia have such an article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

This is consistent with what I've observed since the beginning of the pandemic, —PaleoNeonate – 23:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I note we have an article Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic which accurately states that "Trump repeatedly uttered falsehoods regarding the pandemic". Perhaps this could be a model for our coverage in general? Of course, a key difference is that in the US system the state is much more plural, and the president's words often contradict those of federal agencies, those of other branches of government or those of state governments, for example, which is not the case with China. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it depends on how large and notable the subtopic is. For example, we have Presidency of Richard Nixon and Watergate Scandal. The latter is effectively a cover up article and a subarticle of the Presidency article. By contrast, the article on Jimmy Carter contains a brief mention of "lust" and "adultery in my heart", but it is not a subarticle, presumably because it is simply too trifling. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Secret Sound (Matt Marble)

I am working on an article about composer and pianist Katherine Ruth Heyman (1877–1944) and I'm currently gathering relevant sources to use. There are not a lot of sources that go into this great detail about her, but there is an episode of a podcast by Matt Marble, author of a biography on Arthur Russell which was published by a legitimate looking publisher and a PhD in music composition from Prinston University.

I probably wouldn't have any concerns citing an article by him, but I feel like citing a podcast is different, even though it's mostly just a narrated article. Obviously, I would include appropriate timestamps when citing it. My question is basically, is this a valid SPS for a professional in the field?

Marble, Matt (July 4, 2018). Her Dreaming Fingers (Katherine Ruth Heyman). Secret Sound (Podcast). 2. RoseCherry64 (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic: I'll ask here since it's related to using this source for my article. What abbreviation (if any) should I use in Template:sfn for timestamps using the loc parameter? I've just been putting the timestamp without any preceding abbreviation. RoseCherry64 (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Discogs -- material backed by photos (typically discographies, track listings, and some credits)

Executive summary: the listing for Discogs at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is way off base and needs a serious update, regarding material backed by photos.

---

So, Discogs is listed at "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources" as "Generally unreliable" ("Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used... Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate"), and the blurb is "The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate."

This is entirely accurate and correct as far as it goes.

HOWEVER

The discographies and track listings, when backed up by photos (which is usual), are extremely reliable. The photos are 100% legit and what could be more reliable than a photo. Of course the labels could be wrong, but so could title pages of books etc. -- vanishingly rare. And track listing etc. are the primary, or anyway a major, use of the source.

For instance, here is the track listing for The Who Sell Out. I don't know who writes those, but they could be made up or just sloppy I suppose. However, if you click on the "more images" link, you'll come to a photo of the labels on the vinyl disc, which backs up the written track listing (essentially 100% of the time) and also gives, usually, songwriting and producing credits and the catalog number etc. (There isn't a separate URL for the photos.) I haven't yet seen any record which doesn' have photos like this.

The back cover is sometimes shown too, which back covers are 100% reliable for their contents ("According to the liner notes, it was recorded at sea") and >99% for their statements ("It was recorded at sea") which is plenty reliable.

So, the rating and blurb is not true. 'We need to update the listing at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources I would say.

Exactly how I'm not sure. Since half of Discogs is essentially useless and half is really reliable, I'd split it into two lines. Not likely as we're hidebound here, so let's assume one line. We'd want to rewrite the blub ("...except for material, such as discographies, track listings, and credits, when backed by photographs") or whatever. Then the icon... probably should be changed to, I don't know, "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise", it' "areas of expertise" being record labels and jackets. There isn't an icon for "Half the material is essentially useless, and half is very reliable", so that's closest I guess.

Yes? Herostratus (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

So I agree there's an issue here. Discogs is (1) a wiki made of user-generated content; (2) near-infallible in my experience, and a vastly more useful and trustworthy discography source than almost any edited redigestion. I'm not sure how to resolve this - David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Isn’t this kinda how Wikipedia is, though? I don’t see an exemption for us citing our own good (or even featured) articles, for example, even though they have gone under peer review. Likewise, I don’t see a way around the problem of the reliability of sites that are user-generated with limited editorial oversight. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

well, precisely. OTOH, citing listings from photos on Discogs is basically citing the sleeves as sources, which we do - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

However, if you click on the "more images" link, you'll come to a photo of the labels on the vinyl disc, which backs up the written track listing Ok, so the source here is the labels on the disc and other information present on the album cover (the "liner notes"), and Discogs happens to host a picture of this source. Even though liner notes are a WP:PRIMARY source, I guess they are the most reliable source for information about an album. IMO a rough proposed amendment could be "Although the information on Discogs is user-generated content, Discogs often hosts pictures of an album's liner notes, which can be used as a source". JBchrch talk 20:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds not-bad to me. "as a WP:PRIMARY source" - David Gerard (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Heh. The division of sources into primary-secondary-tertiary was lifted partly from academic practice; we're a serious publication but not an academic one, and a pretty unique one, and it's not especially useful to us, and counterproductive to the extent that it's hammered into editors' heads that primary sources are bad. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If Discogs gets its content from its images of the album covers, labels, and liner notes, why cite Discogs as the source? The info may be cited directly from the albums using {{Cite AV media}}. Discogs is just being used as an image provider, and the image may linked directly with |url= (Discogs includes a "Permalink" for the actual image[28]) and identified with |via=Discogs for those needing proof. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This is pretty much the argument I'm making. What do you think of adding these instructions in a footnote to the proposed text? JBchrch talk 19:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh dang I didn't see the permalink thing. So yeah that would be OK. Whatever works best. For my part I'd rather link to the Discogs page, because for one thing who is going to know about the photos (I didn't), and for another the Discogs page is formatted to be pleasing to humans (in theory anyway), while the photos aren't as easy to read. And the human-readable text is backed up by the photos.

But As long as we fix it that's all I care, I'll go along with anything. If you all want to recommend citing the photos directly, fine, whatever we can get agreed to and written up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources under the Discogs entry. I'm tired of people being like "You can't ref stuff to Discogs". Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, Discogs is very good for primary information: the stuff which can be lifted from a label or sleeve. For want of anything better, I imagine it's OK for details of parallel releases; though as I've never seen the need to use those, I've never checked. My concern is about Discogs hyperlinks, e.g. for songwriters and personnel (which, as a DABfixer, is what I usually find myself looking at). They generally seem good; but there's no guarantee that, say, the John Smith credited on a recording is actually the John Smith (57) or whoever at the other end of a hyperlink, and I prefer to have confirmatory evidence if I can get it. I treat biographical information as pure UGC, and never touch it (though it can be useful as confirmatory evidence). Narky Blert (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

No, just cite the album jacket directly. Don't cite user generated photos/uploads. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Per Sergecross73, the citation is the album jacket itself. Discogs is a nice resource to find pictures of album jackets, but it should not be cited anymore than you would cite "Google Books" for a scan of a book, you cite the original work. --Jayron32 14:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes (yes!), but that means we also need a sea change in perception of discographical information. I can't tell you how many times I have seen people tag or blank discography sections for being "unsourced" - because people do not think of albums as published works (which they are) or things that act as sources of their own existence and content (just like a bibliography section). It is absolutely silly for us to have a line in a discography that reads "Foo Album (Foo Records, 1800)", and then an in-line citation to "Liner notes, Foo Album, Foo Records, 1800." But novice users find it absolutely irresistible to cite Discogs when this information is (typically frivolously) challenged in that way.

Another note, sort of following on David Gerard's comment above: all of this puts us in the unenviable position of telling people to look at Discogs all the time for basic discographical information (just as they would look at Google Books or a library catalog for bibliographic information), while also telling them they can never use it as a reference. That's a bit of Wikipedia pretzel-logic, but I suppose it will be consensus. Chubbles (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I would argue Discogs is a means to verify any claims whenever liner notes are mentioned as a source. Users are providing scans/shots of published works. It's a self-published source in a way where caution is stressed on its reliability. – The Grid (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discogs is very useful, and where I always begin when I start album articles, but I agree with the previous discussion, consensus, etc. I generally cut and paste the song titles, for example, and then confirm via the images, and so often--or often enough--things are misspelled, out of order (even when accounting for specific releases/countries), missing symbols, etc. Or the song lengths don't match up to the images, so there's the discrepancy of the images being "correct", and the linked page being "wrong". Minor stuff, but I don't think it's any kind of burden to continue to cite the AV way, if necessary, or for Discogs to be under the external links, but am open to the discussion. To add a somewhat related wrinkle, I've come across a few times where the Discogs images are quite poor, or not there, and yet the eBay ones are great, ha... Caro7200 (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

R to JBchrch: Yes, it's basically the same point. I use Discogs and several other sites for their images and don't find them difficult to read. I believe it's preferable to cite the actual album notes as the source and remove any doubt about the accuracy of an unknown user gleaning the details themselves. As long as Discogs allows other info to be included along with the basic album note material without any idea of where it comes from, it cannot be considered a RS. There is also the problem of the large amount of advertising and unofficial video links that are potentially copyvio.

Maybe clarify your proposed amendment with something like "Discogs images of album covers, liner notes, etc., may be used for details about the release, but Discogs itself should not be cited as the source, since it includes other user-generated material". This may seem like nitpicking, but some editors feel that any use of UGC sites should be strongly discouraged.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright then, in the interest of a unified front, count me in too with instruction to cite only to the photos. It already warns about Discogs so the second sentence isn't necessary. We want to be both succinct and comprehensive, so I'll suggest that we just add something short like "...except for photographs" in the main body, then a Cnote link to a note at the bottom of the page where it lays out the details... how we are mostly talking about pics of covers and labels, how to use the the permalink button in Discogs, a recommendation of using the CiteAV template, a link to this discussion, and anything else needed. This is done often enough on rules pages.

Note that there's no requirement to cite track listings etc. We don't have to express an opinion on that one way or the other. If an editor is of the mind "I don't need a cite as the work itself is a cite", fine. IMO you're taking that chance that someone will come along and tag or delete the material as uncited but you can if you want. Discogs is there for if you want to cite. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Implementation (Discogs)

It seems like there is consensus that pictures hosted on Discogs may be used as primary sources, using the appropriate templates. I've boldly edited WP:DISCOGS the RSP entry for Discogs to reflect this: [29]. Feedback is welcome. (I have not added a link to this discussion since, as I understand it, this will have to be done once this discussion is archived.) JBchrch talk 19:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Discogs in the "auto-reject" bucket of any of the spam-fighting bots? We should change that if so. Chubbles (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It might even be possible to have most of the existing citations "repaired" (e.g., to use {{Cite AV media}} with a |via= to Discogs) by bot or AWB. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Before making such changes, there's another issue to consider: WP:LINKVIO. Does Discogs have the right to host these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discogs removes copyrighted images. JBchrch talk 03:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It may well. But there appear to be a significant number of images that are potentially still covered by copyright yet still posted there. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That's entirely possible, but I would argue that if a website takes a commitment of this kind and creates a dedicated channel to report copyright infringement, we may assume that it's not hosting copyrighted material, and that LINKVIO is respected. Otherwise, links to Twitter, Facebook and Youtube—any UGC, really—would have to be nuked as well. JBchrch talk 04:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Er, no, we really can't assume that. See YouTube's entry at RSP - it would make sense to add something similar to its third sentence for Discogs. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course Discogs is hosting copyrighted images - tons and tons of them. But they are not doing so in violation of copyright, and the dedicated channel noted above is part of their obvious good-faith effort to respect copyright law. Chubbles (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

On what basis do you believe they are hosting tons and tons of copyrighted images but are not in violation of copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discogs is (principally) an informational site and its use of copyrighted images is permitted by fair use/fair dealing provisions. It's perfectly consistent with copyright law for information sources to host a great deal of copyrighted content and still comport with copyright. Chubbles (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is, but it takes more than just being an informational site to get there, and direct linking as proposed is potentially problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does, but Discogs's use is consistent with it; users are informed of intellectual property requirements at the time of upload of images, the claim of fair use in the images is explained in that process, and as noted above they have a means of contact for rightsholders to address issues. What, specifically, is potentially problematic such that Wikipedia should be circumspect? Chubbles (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

All of those things are AFAIK also true of YouTube - why should this site be treated differently? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, the wording at RSP about YouTube should probably change, since, as you correctly state, YouTube (now) informs users of its rights requirements and aggressively enforces corporate copyright controls. But that's another RfC entirely. If the worry is that linking to Discogs might run afoul of contributory copyright infringement...that seems awfully remote - about as likely as it would be for linking to copyrighted websites hosted at the Wayback Machine. Chubbles (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with we really can't assume that is that this line of reasoning would lead us to prohibit links to Commons, because Commons hosts a lot of copyrighted content for sure. JBchrch talk 16:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

No one is proposing a blanket prohibition, just caution along the lines of what we've got for YouTube, and a bit more consideration around how we approach citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess the consensus is moving towards a Youtube-like disclaimer. Since you have reverted my edit [30]: is there anything else that's you oppose about this addition? JBchrch talk 00:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Given this issue, I have concerns about the proposed citation method, unless what was intended was more along the lines of what Jayron suggested? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• See, you don't link, or even need to mention Discogs at all. If you're looking at a picture of the liner notes or track listing on Discogs, you cite the original liner notes. We don't cite "Google Books" if we're looking at a Google Books scan of a book, we cite the book itself. Same deal here. --Jayron32 13:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Right. Anyone who has UGC or potential copyvio concerns doesn't need to add the permalink link to Discogs nor mention it in via= (books are cited all the time without links/mentions of google). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah the copyright thing is a good point. Regardless of what uploaders sign off on, I can definitely see the point that using an entire album cover (front or back) as a bridge too far.

Album labels are quite different I think. They are almost always mere mechanical listings not really works of significant craft, they have no real commercial value, and the label (unlike the cover) is an insignificant part of the whole package so for Discogs to publish it under fair use is legit (I would think). I'm not even sure that labels specifically are copyrighted, altho I suppose they would fall under under the general rubric "everything here is copyrighted"

As to the need, I don't know, but should we be really be writing body-text passages like

"In 1963, Smith released the LP Songs From All Over (Paul Morris wrote the track "Heart of the Night" which was released as a single), but in 1965 was back as lead singer with the Monotones on the double-LP Little Bit of Loving. Smith wrote most of the songs, including "Where Do I Get Off" which ran over 14 minutes and took up all of side 4. Smith, along with Allison Smith, were the producers for that song; Lloyd Wingate produced the rest of the album."

With no references whatsoever (on grounds that the records themselves are the source), and standing on that if contested?

I just don't think that's going to fly with some people. Like it or not. You're going to get tagged, your material is going to get deleted. As a fact on the ground books and films are treated differently I guess. Can't help that but it is what it is no use denying it.

So, what I'm thinking is: 1) DO make a note that disc labels (only) from Discogs are fine. 2) Do NOT imply that they are required to use, they are there for anyone who WANTS to use them. (If necessary, clarify this.)

By using "only", we're indicating that disc labels but not record jackets etc are in play. I'm saying this because we want to get everybody on board here. I think (hope) that most of us would agree that the disc labels are trivial fair use, but the record-jacket thing is contested. Even if you personally think that record jackets at Discogs are ok to ref too, in the interests of compromising to get consensus, let's put them out of play shall we? Perfect is the enemy of good enough. Herostratus (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the "no references" point. If you're citing the record-jacket, you should cite the record jacket. If you're citing the disc label, you should site the disc label. You should provide enough details in you references that other are able to work out what you're citing. For example, since the details may vary in between different releases, you should specify which release you're referring to. But there's never any need to a link to the source, sources do not have to be online, or even easy to access and the absence of a convience link doesn't make the source invalid.

Although Jayron32 has already pointed this out, there seems to be remaining confusion about what editors are actually citing here. If discogs is simply hosting photos or scans of disc labels or record-jackets, they're not being used as a source. They are simply a convience link for the actual soruce which is the disc label or record jacket. Of course editors need to have actually seen the source in some way to be able to cite it, and generally they should be able to help others e.g. with a copy if needed to aide verification.

Google Books was already given as an example but this confusion arises in a lot of cases. For example with YouTube unless it's content specifically released on YouTube then most of the time YouTube is irrelevant. If the content appears to have been YouTube without the copyright holders permission e.g. a documentary, then the YouTube link is out. But if the documentary is reliable then it's fine to cite it without the YouTube link.

A few months ago someone was asking about a newspaper scan or photo on some user generated site which seemed to lead to similar confusion. As IIRC I pointed out at the time, if the newspaper was a reliable source than if there was sufficient information on the newspaper, date etc the article could be cited. The fact that the user generated site was not a reliable source was mostly irrelevant. The only relevance was if this scan was the only copy anyone on Wikipedia had ever seen, given we had no real idea of the providence of this scan, then possibly it should stay out until someone can independently verify the scan was accurate. Either way possibly the convience link of the scan would need to stay out, but that didn't make the source invalid.

This is perhaps the only issue where discogs seems to matter when it comes to reliability issues. Do we trust the process discogs uses enough such that if the only place an editor has seen the alleged record jacket is via an image on discogs, this is acceptable? I have no idea, but whatever we decide, although this touches on the reliability of discogs to some extent, discogs still isn't the source we are citing, it's still the record jacket or whatever.

Note that while we do not allow link to sites violation copyright, we generally do not forbid editors from citing a source just because they likely violated copyright to obtain it. E.g. we won't be linking to content from Sci-Hub and I don't think we should even be encouraging editors to use it in any way but if someone has I don't think this makes their citations invalid since despite the murky nature of Sci-Hub, it seems unlikely that they're modifying content. We don't generally ask editors how they obtained access to a source anyway, there's actually a fair amount of trust built into the system and ultimately editors do need to use their judgment on whether they can be sure the copy they obtained could have been modified in some way or even is simply fake.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Herostratus: If an explicit footnote in running prose is needed to an album jacket/liner notes/track listing/disc label or other paraphernalia alongside sound recordings, there's no reason not to do that. I can see where something like the track listing would be implicitly referenced to the track listing on the disc label, and wouldn't necessarily need a footnote, but in running prose if it needs one, just add one. For example, consider the GA-level article Kind of Blue. That article has citations to numerous versions of the album, and a lot of the running prose is cited to the 1997 CD edition. You can do it just like that. --Jayron32 17:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, right. I mean, I wrote a good article on the Dellwoods -- decent article, a few paragraphs, probably meets WP:NBAND with two major-label albums -- but it was PRODed and then nominated for deletion partly on grounds that the Discogs refs (to the labels, albeit indirectly) in the running text were no good. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says "Don't use Discogs, period", and its hard to fight against a written rule.

The objection to Discogs was that, even if it were reliable, it's just faithfully reproducing the album tracklisting themselves, which in no way satisfies WP:GNG. It's neither independent (since the source is a work by the band itself) and it's not sufficiently in-depth (a listing of songs and albums is a trivial mention of the band). The article certainly wasn't deleted (well, redirected) because it cited discogs, but rather because it lacked any meaningful other sources. --Jayron32 04:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

What's the copyright position on linking to photographs? EddieHugh (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

See the last para of WP:LINKVIO. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Although album covers and liner notes are usually copyrighted, the labels on the records (often showing songwriters and durations) usually aren't. The WP upload info for the "Good Rockin' Tonight" image used below states that it's in the public domain (no copyright marks, etc.). I suspect that many singles images used in WP articles are also PD, but were identified as copyrighted to play it safe. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Concrete suggestion (Discogs)

So here is my suggestion. In the main rule we currently have

The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate.

For the main rule here's my suggestion (bolded text is to show changes, not to be put in the actual text):

The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable except for photographs. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate. A 2021 discussion permitted the use of photographs^{[Note 1]}

.

Then, way at the bottom of the page, in smaller font, pointed to by the "[Note 1]", we can stretch out as much we want. So something maybe like:

By current consensus, photographs hosted by Discogs are considered reliable representations of the work in question. Generally, audio recordings do not need citations, as the citation is to the work itself (e.g <ref>''The Who Strike Out'' (1968 Decca edition), liner notes</ref>). However, as a convenience for the reader, a reference pointing to a photograph of a record/CD/tape label (only) hosted on Discogs may be included (although never required). Photographs on Discogs of anything other than labels should not be linked to directly, as there's no consensus that Discogs is necessarily hosting them legitimately. {{Cite AV media}} is the usual and recommended template for references any photographs, including photographs hosted on Discogs. (N.B. Discogs provides a "permalink" button for referencing individual photographs directly.)

Example of photograph of a record label, which may be linked to. This particular photograph is considered sufficient proof for the existence of the record, the performer, the (official) songwriter, the length of the performance, the record company and its location, and the record company's catalog number for that record

I think that ncluding a photo would help, for instance as show here. Not sure if footnotes can include image files.

I tend prolix, so maybe my suggestions are too long, and improvements welcome, but we do want to be clear about what we're talking about. You know how some people can ruleslawer. Any changes, fine, count me in, let's keep moving. Herostratus (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Edited and cut it down some. 04:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing. Upon first read, I thought that it was condoning the use of images hosted on Discogs as images, but what we're really condoning is the use of information contained in the images. Therefore, something like this would be better imo:

The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. However, images of album labels and liner notes hosted on Discogs are reliable sources of the information contained in them.^{[Note 1]} There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate.

[Note 1] would be what you wrote above, I think it's good and doesn't need any changes. Mlb96 (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think this proposal is too technical and that few readers will understand what exactly can be linked and/or referenced, unless we draft a dedicated guideline, which I would oppose anyway per WP:CREEP. I think we need to either 1. make a clear-cut decision as to whether linking to pictures hosted on Discogs is allowed per LINKVIO or 2. just add a Youtube-like disclaimer and brief footnote about {{Cite AV media}} and {{Cite AV media notes}}, but no more. JBchrch talk 21:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm really not seeing that any of the above proposals are an improvement; I think they will considerably increase confusion and rules-lawyering. Nothing presented has been better than the present RSP listing, rather than worse. The reference for the contents of the labels and sleeves is the labels and sleeves themselves; Discogs itself does no work at all here. The present RSP listing notes that external links are not forbidden. Nor do I see that there is actually a consensus for changing the listing - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, but I mean, a lot Wikipedia editors won't accept references to a work for music, as they do for books and films. They just won't, is all; I don't know why, but you can't make them. But there's proof in Discogs (and frequently nowhere else). But RSP says "Never use Discogs for anything, ever". So that's out. I mean I had a nice article on a band, band probably meets NBAND and all, nominated partly on grounds of containing several refs to Discogs. I explained the situation, but the response was basically "The rule is the we are not allowed to use Discogs, period, and you are not going to change my mind". And the article was indeed destroyed. So Discogs is out, it's toxic. No refs in running text is not going pass muster. So the only way around this is to not write articles about musicians, which I, having written several, will now do. I'm not up for working two days on an article just to lose it. How this is a win I can't see, but whatever. Herostratus (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you please link the AFD in question, so we can see the discussion you're talking about? - David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dellwoods. Herostratus (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

OK - so your characterisation of the AFD consensus is bizarrely hyperbolic. The actual objections are that the sources are self-published blogs and user-submitted Discogs, and nothing else. Looking at the version through the AFD, this appears to be the case. The trouble is a lack of RSes, not the use of Discogs per se - your characterisation of this dispute is obviously inaccurate just looking at the actual AFD responses and the actual article text that was nominated - David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we can probably establish a consensus that Discogs entries do not establish notability, and are not reliable secondary sources, but the images are reliable primary sources for basic publishing information on discs and recordings, and so may be used to populate the content of discography sections. That summarizes how I would treat Discogs links in an AfD; the main rub here seems to be over whether we should link directly to Discogs or use Cite AV when there is a dispute over content. Chubbles (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I'd still like to see the original AFD at issue first; I'm reluctant to draw a claim of consensus on an issue of which we have no actual examples - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Close with no changes - the actual dispute at hand was grossly mischaracterised by the nominator; there is no substantive issue here that warrants a change to the RSP entry - David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to be insulting. The question at hand was a general point, I mentioned a particular AfD in passing deep in the text, you consider it important, but its not. The question at hand is a general one, whether photographs hosted on Discogs can be linked to, as a convenience to the editor and the reader. I'm seeing enough people saying "no" that it's not likely to become allowed, and fine, that's not excellent IMO but it doesn't come up that much to be very important I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If you can think of a way of phrasing the fact that you grossly misrepresented the single example you were, eventually, able to give at all that you'd like better, then by all means give a phrasing. But you did, in fact, grossly misrepresent it, this is the key point regarding the proposal at hand, and there is no evidence of a substantive issue here that warrants a change to the RSP entry - David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, your going on and on about an issue that you alone seem to care about makes it increasingly harder for me to assume you're just having a bad day. You've made your point and registered your !vote, and I don't see any use in going on about this, let the closer decide how much it matters. Herostratus (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Is HeroicHollywood.com reliable source?

There is not a simple discuss on reliability of HeroicHollywood.com [31]. What do you think about this website? Reiro (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And I wonder whether Comicbook.com is appropriate source. Thank you.--Reiro (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't appear reliable. It looks very heavy on the churnalism and hype. --Hipal (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sexual addiction

Hi, this is about [32]. Hotpine claims that the source would be unreliable for the claim made. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The claim does seem very US-centric for what is a worldwide topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, what happens in the US has impact for the rest of the world, because DSM is the Bible of psychiatry. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not true. One of my relatives is a psychiatrist, and they tell me that the DSM is very US-centric in its use, and that they tend to use the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases, which has wide use internationally. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

According to [33], DSM-5 is the Dutch de facto standard. It does say there is a difference between "diagnosis" and "classification".

[34] says that UK and France don't use the DSM-5.

And, frankly, even in the US, ICD is the law of the land, but DSM-5 is the de facto standard. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

In the UK the ICD is the official and most widely used standard. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment on The Daily Dot

WP:RSPSS lists The Daily Dot as "generally reliable for internet culture", and I would broadly agree. However, I still think that additional discretion is warranted when using the source.

As per the Wikipedia article for internet culture, the term is rather vague without well-defined boundaries which would make the statement "generally reliable for internet culture" to be somewhat problematic. The Daily Dot does sort their stories by category including by "Internet Culture", but the tag is also found in many articles that may not specifically be about internet culture (example 1 2) or where it merely touches upon it briefly and isn't the main focus. Secondly, while I agree that their straight news reporting on internet trends is usually good, a lot of their articles are highly opinionated without disclosure. Many of their features engage in heavy analysis and commentary (ex. attributing motives*, dubbing others "Karens" and things "cringeworthy" without quotes, etc.) without properly labelling such articles. They do have articles that are labelled as such, but many of them lack such delineation. They have also been mentioned in a previous discussion as well as the Wikipedia article to have a political slant in reporting. (*For clarity, I don't disagree with the accusations of being transphobic, but the article is also heavy on analysis/commentary as well as content that would pose BLP issues while not explicitly labelled as Opinion or Analysis)

While I don't think this means that it should not be considered "generally reliable", I still think that extra care should be taken when citing articles from The Daily Dot. They are great when breaking news about topics that are trending strictly in cyberspace, but I would generally take care to always default to attribution unless multiple sources are available - especially since they can be highly opinionated during reporting coupled with the fact they are often one of the only sources deemed reliable to cover certain niche internet topics.Dankmemes2 (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I support the DD concerns here. I think many editors take "reliable for internet culture" to mean reliable for anything on the internet. So if DD says the ideas that a public figure shares on Twitter are "-phobic" then this must be due/reliable etc. If DD tells us there is a new trend on Twitter where users post pictures of planking. Sure, it's OK for that. However, the concerns regarding mixing opinion and fact, lots of subjective claims treated as fact etc is a big concern and the source should never be used for things like contentious claims about BLP subjects. It would be a terrible source for things like BLPs of Gamergate participants. Springee (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in any previous discussions really substantiated (or even seriously argued) that there are serious problems with it outside of internet culture; that is just the bulk of what it writes and therefore most of its output. But it has strong WP:USEBYOTHERS, and nobody has produced any actual reason to question its reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, so I'm included to say that, no, it's definitely a WP:BLP-quality source, and would strenuously object to any removal of it on that grounds. If you want to change it status you need more than just asserting that you dislike its tone or conclusions. --Aquillion (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Disagreeing with a source's conclusions or tone isn't a reason to question its reliability; neither, as far as I am aware, did any of the previous discussions say it is not reliable outside of internet culture (that was just the main area that has been considered, since that is the bulk of what it writes.) Do you have any secondary sources questioning its reliability? It has significant academic WP:USEBYOTHERS where it is cited for statements of fact (eg. [35][36][37][38][39][40] - you'd need more than just "they call people Karens". (I will point out, since someone bafflingly claimed above that they are somehow a bad source for BLPs of Gamergate participants, that many academic sources cite them for specifically that subject, eg. [41][42][43][44][45][46]) And interpretation and analysis is what a secondary WP:RS is supposed to do; describing someone's motives is entirely appropriate. (eg. the New York Times regularly discusses the motives of politicians and characterizes their actions - [47][48][49].) Do you have any sources raising the concerns you have here, or is this just your personal opinion? Without that, I would honestly suggest removing the "for internet culture" bit from its descriptor to settle this and noting that it is generally reliable, though some editors have objected to its tone or believe it to be biased. --Aquillion (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You do understand that the Data and Society stuff is not peer reviewed right? One of your accademic papers is about Pokemon Go. Other sources are using it as a news source for comments about on line trolling. I don't see an issue there. However, the original concern regarding the heavy mixing of subjective claims/assessment/editor opinion with fact is an issue. It's nice that a key word search can turn up examples but are they good examples that really say this is a good source or just examples where someone was trying to find any source to support a claim they are trying to make. (I understand this as the first time one of my papers was cited it was cited for something that was tangential to my actual research. It was an example of a bad citation.) Springee (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but as far as I can recall, you haven't presented anything to back up your concerns about the Daily Dot, ever. You've objected to it repeatedly but you've never substantiated that as anything but your personal gut feelings. I get that your gut tells you that this source has an unusual amount of mixing of subjective claims/assessment/editor opinion with fact (something I completely disagree with and don't think any of the presented examples really support, hence why I pointed to similar language from obvious WP:RSes), but even if you can object to one or two of the twelve citations to it I linked, I included multiple academic sources using it for what we would consider BLP-sensitive remarks in the specific area where you implied their reputation would be insufficient to support that usage. To respond to that you need to actually point to actual mainstream coverage of the Daily Dot that reflects your concerns, especially since I've demonstrated that its stature is sufficient that that coverage should clearly exist if your expressed concerns are grounded in fact. WP:RS is ultimately about whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not about whether you like their tone or agree with the language they use. --Aquillion (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, I was not trying to argue in favour of ousting The Daily Dot from its status as "generally reliable" for internet culture - which is why I said I broadly agree. It was more of a comment. I've already addressed the internet culture issue, I'll focus on the opinion/analysis part. The Daily Dot indeed does do a lot of straightforward news reporting, and while most reliable sources do engage in explicit analysis and commentary, my experience is that DD articles often contain them explicitly in ones that are not labelled as such. For example, in the "attributing motives" example I listed, it was definitively claimed outright that JK Rowling makes it "absolutely sure everyone knows she doesn’t consider trans women to be women" in a news article not labelled as analysis or opinion. My issue with the article is not so much the tone or that they would come to that conclusion, but that the article engaged in such opinion/analysis and stated them like proven facts in a news article when they were based off tweets that didn't explicitly say what was stated. As you are likely aware of (given this is a heated topic), the claims that were made are currently highly contentious and disputed. I am aware that a source being opinionated does not mean it is not generally reliable and I know that mere disagreement (which is something that I don't with the said article in question as I think Rowling's statements are indeed transphobic and harmful, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand) is not an argument against them. However, there's a difference between merely discussing or questioning someone's motives like the NYT articles appear to do (one of which was explicitly labelled an analysis, and from what I've read in the other I would also support using in-line citation) and stating assumptions or interpretations (especially one that would be contentious) outright in a news article as if it were an proven fact. And while having articles that dub others "Karen" and the like doesn't necessarily diminish their factual credibility, such characterization is in essence based on bias/opinion and should not be confused as straight news.

Additionally, The Daily Beast (ex. 1 2 3 4 5) and Mashable also enjoy frequent citation as fact in academic use (ex. 1 2 34 etc.), despite being listed as WP:MREL, and some of the examples you gave also contain sources that are not WP:GREL. Again, I am not disputing that The Daily Dot belongs in the WP:GREL category but my opinion is that the source problematically mixes analysis/commentary and users should default to in-line attribution when citing it. I'd support updating the summary/description on WP:RSPSS as such, but you may disagree. Dankmemes2 (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• This appears to be more just knowing how to apply YESPOV to a source when it engages in the mixed factual/editorial approach for its articles (which is the bread and butter of how the Daily Dot writes). That is, we as editors can be smart enough to understand to recognize when they engage in editorial statements and attribute those (if needed), while leaving their statements of fact appropriately. Their reliability on Internet culture is still fine, as they aren't wrong when they talk factually in their articles. --Masem (t) 22:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This is perhaps a better way to address the original concern. When the Daily Dot takes a limited set of facts and uses them to call someone a troll, or just reports on what is realistically gossipy news we really shouldn't give it any weight for inclusion in an article that claims to be encyclopedic. Springee (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with this 'trust people to use it correctly' approach is that it leaves ourselves wide open for POV pushing, whether the editor doing so is aware that's what they're doing or not. A lot of editors are of the mindset that just about anything in a source marked green at RSP, even statements that are highly opinionated, can then be treated as factual, and as something we can state in Wikivoice (and even that not doing so is whitewashing). Editors can thus circumvent the restrictions on opinion articles noted at WP:RSOPINION and launder opinions into facts. I suggest these outlets that mix opinion and fact need to be more clearly cautioned about on RSP. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

News story explaining a specific film, based on the distribution company's resource.

• [50](Korean)

This news story explained 2019 film Joker, showing why Arkham Asylum is renamed Arkham state hospital, homage elements of The dark knight. The source of these is Warner Bros. Korea, the distribution company of that film. They handed out some explainations of Joker, news story above reported it. I think it is because it's difficult to contact English news stories from Collider (website) in S.Korea, briefly introduced some information in Korean language. (But renaming Arkham Asylum only looked there). Is it reliable? --17:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Clements Markham

• Markham, Clements Robert (April 1891). "Richard III: A Doubtful Verdict Reviewed". The English Historical Review. 6 (22). Oxford University Press: 250–283. doi:10.1093/ehr/vi.xxii.250.

This particular source is used in the Princes in the Tower article.

The Clements Markham article is quite extensive and at FA level. Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Global Times and technology

I am keeping track of all kind of orbital launch vehicles in my userspace - User:Barecode/Launch vehicles and I just found a new rocket named Darwin-1 developed by Rocket Pi. Global Times says "Rocket Pi's founder, the firm also plans to launch its first liquid-fuel carrier rocket codenamed Darwin-1 in 2023" so I wanted to link that article but I'm not allowed. I noticed other articles about technology like one mentioning "Chinese smartphone makers saw a rapid expansion in the second quarter of this year, as Xiaomi ranked No.2 for the first time in the global smartphone market". Why are links to such articles not allowed on Wikipedia, not even in the user space? Is GT publishing false or fabricated information about mobile phones, computers, satellites or space launchers? -- Barecode (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hej, check out WP:GLOBALTIMES. GT is a unreliable source, because it seems to publish false or fabricated information. User space use is certainly allowed though, but I suppose it doesn't make much sense because you won't really use it in mainspace anyways. What do you mean but I'm not allowed? Mvbaron (talk) 09:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Nothing prevents you from adding it to your userpage, you would just trip an edit filter once. Though these pieces can't be used for content in article and alternative reliable sources would be required; also I'd think propaganda related to technology, particularly space technology, is well within the interests of the Chinese government. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Mvbaron - I got this message: Error: Your action has triggered an edit filter An automated filter has detected that you are adding a link to a deprecated source, considered generally unreliable after discussion by the community. and since it was an Error and not a Warning I didn't try again. Now I tried again and I could save it. Yet the question remains: Fox News for example is banned for political and scientifical information only. Why GT is banned for any kind of information? I understand they are not reliable for politics (like Fox News) but does it publish false or fabricated information about technology or say for example weather or sports or reporting natural disasters?

Tayi Arajakate - I wouldn't be sure they fabricate facts about space technology in general and about rocket launchers in particular. Haven't noticed any false information until now in this regard. If they say they launched 53 rockets this year, the Western sources say the same for example. I'm just saying, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything or to insist about this. -- Barecode (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the Global Times in specific is that beyond the issue of state control of media in China, it is also a low quality sensationalist tabloid and often makes misleading or exaggerated claims, to the point that in order to be certain of the accuracy of anything it publishes, one would have to rely on other secondary sources, at which point these secondary sources can be used and using Global Times becomes redundant. It just plainly fails the policy on reliable sources which requires that for a source to be considered reliable, it should have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Now, I understand that media outside China may not always cover certain details, so if it is necessary there are other higher quality Chinese sources which can be used for uncontroversial topics where the Chinese government doesn't have a stake, for example the newspaper China Daily (RSP entry) and the Xinhua News Agency (RSP entry); note the guidance in their entries. That said, space technology is something that is political so it might require higher standards for news, Hong Kong based outlets such as the South China Morning Post (RSP entry) could be better alternatives as they are comparatively more shielded from manipulation by the state. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

To clarify: Fox News for example is banned for political and scientifical information only is not true. The consensus is that there should be additional consideration applied when sourcing from Fox News on those topics, particularly for contentious facts. This is different than, say, Rolling Stone, where politics coverage in the magazine is considered to be generally unreliable ever since around 2011. Global Times is worse. It is considered to be so unreliable and prone to misuse by editors that it is deprecated as a source for facts. GT is generally more unhinged in its writings than Xinhua or People's Daily and its editorial line is more jingoistic than the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, which leads to the source being misused to try to convey what the central party actually thinks on an issue—it's really a CCP-run tabloid that faces all the pitfalls of tabloid journalism plus the pitfalls of being run by the Communist Party of China. Something like Caixin or SCMP are significantly better for Chinese technology than GT. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)