Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 430

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 425←Archive 428Archive 429Archive 430Archive 431Archive 432→Archive 435

USA Today

Today, USA Today is listed as a generally reliable source st WP:RSP. During an AfD discussion I noticed that they now allow 'contributor' posts without editorial oversight that are essentially advertising. This is the article I took notice of, but looking at the 'Contributor Content' category, most of these articles are of a similar type. When googling I also see sites claiming to sell the service of writing promotional contributor articles. At a bare minimum this should be discussed and noted on the Perennial sources article, but I also want to open a discussion about USA Today overall. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

As long as there's a tag that says "Contributor Content" like that, we are still good with other articles presumable written by staff. We probably should definitely add to the USA Today entry on RSP something equivalent to Forbes on contributors. Masem (t) 21:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Concur with Masem. As long as they're clearly identifying the paid material, then fine. USA Today goes the extra step and adds a disclaimer at the bottom of the article, and also shows it in the URL, which makes it easy to scan for. I'll typically look for USA Today CC posts every other day or so. The Forbes ones are not identifiable by URL, and are much more difficult to identify without bringing up the article. I fear this is part of a much larger trend of 'alternate revenue generation' where normally reliable publications are selling their brand, be it 'sponsored content', 'brand spotlights', or these 'contributor contribution' blogs.Sam Kuru (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Are IMDbPro/Box Office Mojo reliable sources?

Hi, I was wondering if IMDbPro and Box Office Mojo considered reliable sources? It's common to see Box Office Mojo being used for box office gross data and sometimes for crediting, but there's no discussion about their reliability. While IMDb on its own is deemed unreliable, I was wondering about the credibility of IMDbPro and Box Office Mojo, especially considering they are owned by the same company. Lililolol (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You can check out WP:IMDB, it's not a reliable source but can be used as an external link for a page about an actor, director film, etc. In regards to Box Office Mojo, according to WP:FILM/R, it's generally reliable for information/verifiability but probably not establishing notability, although I'm guessing a film cited there likely has some reviews/analyses in trade publications like Variety or Deadline Hollywood. TLAtlak 22:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Red Ventures

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus in this discussion was that the online properties of Red Ventures are generally unreliable. The concern most often expressed is that Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner. The case was made that this policy was followed across all of Red Ventures online properties to such an extent that it was reasonable to presume their content is problematic. A strongly argued, but ultimately minority position was that the blanket characterization of content across topically unrelated websites was undesirable, and inconsistent with our historical practices. There was no real meeting of the minds between these camps, but the editors commenting here generally favored treating all online Red Ventures sites with caution. No such consensus was reached with respect to Red Ventures' print publications, Lonely Planet in particular, and there is no general restriction against the use of these print properties. There was some clarification during the course of the RFC as to whether the print properties were intended to be included in the request or not; regardless, consensus in the discussion is against finding them to be generally unreliable. There was little consideration of Options 1 or 2, and they can be considered firmly rejected by implication. Option 4 attracted scant support, and there is strong consensus against outright deprecation. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


What is the reliability of sites owned by Red Ventures (excluding specific sites listed below)?

This proposal came up at a recent discussion of ZDNet [1]. While Red Ventures itself has been infrequently discussed [2] prior to this RfC, sites now owned by it have been frequently discussed in the past, such as CNET, ZDNet, Healthline, and others. For the purposes of keeping this RfC clear due to Red Ventures' enormous reach, this applies to content published by sites during the period of time they were owned by Red Ventures, so pre-acquisition content would be exempt. This RfC also excludes the following sources as they were previously discussed at WP:RSP:

It also excludes sources sold by Red Ventures in 2022 to Fandom as they were identified in the previous discussion as possibly needing an exception due to frequent use/not spending that much time under Red Ventures. Examples include Metacritic, TV Guide, and Gamespot (which are considered generally reliable at WP:RSP and WP:GAMESOURCES). However, this RfC would apply to ZDNet and Lonely Planet as of the time they were acquired by Red Ventures. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Red Ventures)

  • Option 3. Publications acquired by Red Ventures have come to WP:RSN and have usually been declared as generally unreliable or below. WP:CNET was declared unreliable in 2022 after Red Ventures began filling with AI-generated content, WP:HEALTHLINE was deprecated as being frequently filled with misinformation, and The Points Guy is blacklisted due to abuse. JPxG observed in this thread that ZDNet currently has an article up on "the best Linux desktops" [3] [4] that has notes from the editor still in the article. In addition, the editor did not identify multiple factual inaccuracies and the article is apparently republished every year with the same URL. [5] ZDNet also publishes articles from StackCommerce about great deals on StackCommerce's website, which are not declared as sponsored content. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Other articles are declared as paid content though,[12] which leads me to believe ZDNet is intentionally failing to declare StackCommerce ads as paid content.
This appears to be Red Ventures' modus operandi. They acquire sites with good search engine optimization (SEO) scores, then cut costs by using AI to generate a bunch of content for affiliate marketing on the site. Futurism has identified that Red Ventures uses this strategy across many of their properties such as Bankrate. [13] [14] The Verge also has a good explainer on their editorial process,[15] and adds that Red Ventures pressures journalists at CNet to give better reviews.[16] We shouldn't repeatedly put the onus on editors to prove that Red Ventures ruined a site before we can start removing it; they can easily buy or start another. I think we should look at the common denominator here, which is Red Ventures, and target the problem (a spam network) at its source.
I'll also add that the reason I included so many exceptions in this RfC is because on a pragmatic basis it will be easier to deal with the special cases in the future, rather than now (this avoids a potential WP:TRAINWRECK). It's not because I think all of the exceptions should be treated differently and I don't think this RfC should be seen as closing the door for further discussion on those sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Red Ventures' official policy going forward is also to avoid disclosing AI-generated content.[17] According to the Director of SEO at the company: "Disclosing AI content is like telling the IRS you have a cash-only business," so we can't trust them to disambiguate AI-generated content from non AI-generated content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I've been convinced that this should be limited to web content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Between the AI-generated and often blantantly inaccurate content, as well as the SEO/sales/marketing-oriented output, and the decisions previously made regarding CNET and The Points Guy, a fairly easy blanket GUNREL. The Kip 19:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
  • No. I don't think it makes sense to categorize Lonely Planet as unreliable because some other company owned by Red Ventures did something very stupid. I think that this is jumping the gun: it feels like something should be done, and this is something. Frankly, categorizing an entire outlet as unreliable because one writer or one editor craps the bed is an overreaction; doing so because someone at a different outlet owned by the same parent company crapped the bed is medieval. jp×g🗯️ 21:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    @JPxG: It's not just one writer/editor. Lonely Planet also uses AI (their system is called Trill) to generate content for affiliate marketing. [18] [19] Specifically, the system takes images from influencers and generates "bookable content", which Lonely Planet then gets a commission off of. This is very similar to what CNET and The Points Guy do. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    I should add (I found this while doing more research) that the New York Times did an expose on the AI-generated travel guide industry in August last year. [20] They ran guidebooks through an AI detector and found that the Lonely Planet guides had "next to no chance that they were written by A.I. generators." So, they don't seem to be generating their guidebooks with AI, but they do generate some kind of content with AI. It should also be noticed that according to messages leaked by Futurism, Red Ventures' subsidiaries are encouraged not to disclose AI-generated content. [21] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
    By definition an "AI detector" cannot reliably detect whether content is written by a large language model (as the LLM could use the detector like an oracle machine), so this New York Times claim should be taken with plenty of salt. — Bilorv (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 but I'd prefer option 4 if possible. It's high time for it. Enough is enough: if it's owned by Red Ventures, we need to go ahead and identify it as a hard WP:RS fail. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think Option 4 is going to run into technical snags with the edit filter. The way the filter works is by checking urls and evaluating them against a regex to see if they're deprecated. Since the websites were (largely) fine before Red Ventures, we can't exactly deprecate the sites and slap on the filter in the same way. It might be possible if these websites were to include a datestamp in their urls, but they don't, so we're not going to be able to add them to filter 869 as we would with other deprecated sources. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 but not opposed to Option 4. Highly questionable and effectively not usable in most cases, particularly if they intend to go forward with not disclosing AI content.FortunateSons (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • No. The RfC's need to outline multiple exceptions is an indication that "owned by Red Ventures" is too slippery of a category. We can have RfCs for individual outlets as they come up. It certainly makes sense to point out Red Venture's pattern in future discussions about sources they purchase, but attempting to target Red Ventures while simultaneously acknowledging that this isn't actually wholly consistent and doesn't apply to some outlets that have been under Red Ventures ownership strikes me as liable to be confusing. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
    Personally, I think we should deprecate Healthline because I think even if we designate Red Ventures as unreliable, Healthline is health-related and should be considered even less trustworthy. Metacritic has always been algorithmically generated (we're usually citing it for its review aggregation) and the other sources in 2022 got sold off around the time CNET started dropping AI-generated content. I don't think any of their content right now should be considered above generally unreliable, but other editors might feel differently. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • No. It should be uncontroversial that whatever the pattern of parent comapany's recent acquisitions, sources at RSN-RSP are evaluated individually on their merits. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
    The problem with this is that the parent company pushes the same editorial policy across the entire organization. It's a network of spammy websites and by the time we designate one they already have another. If we ban BestColleges.com [22] Red Ventures can simply start Thebestschools.org. [23] Or they can just switch to OnlineMBA.com [24] or Nursejournal.org. [25] All of these sites have similar content creation policies (generate SEO-optimized content with AI for affiliate marketing) and they all have the same reliability issues because of it according to Futurism.[26] If we have to have a discussion for every site Red Ventures owns, we'll die a death by a thousand cuts, because they have dozens of sites like those four just in the education sector alone. The content is made by most of the same people and has most of the same problems as they're all owned by the same company that does the same things. We should treat them the same as we do other spam networks that show up to RSN. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
    This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard somebody say on an already-ridiculous noticeboard. Do you seriously think that a media holdings company is creating subsidiary companies for the sole purpose of skirting Wikipedia source deprecations? Is this a joke? jp×g🗯️ 03:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
    @JPxG: Maybe I wasn't clear enough and I apologize. Red Ventures' actual concern is Google et al catching on that their content is AI-generated and blocking the site. They're not trying to skirt Wikipedia deprecation, but they start/acquire sites, fill them with garbage, and by the time Google and others catch on, they've moved on. And as a volunteer project we're very far behind the curve.
    It's not that Red Ventures creating subsidiary companies for the sole purpose of skirting Wikipedia source deprecation, it's that by the time we get around to deprecating a source because everyone else has realized its shit, Red Ventures will already have a new thing ready. And this is inherent to the structure of Wikipedia because of how much credence we give to reliable sources judging other reliable sources (e.g. WP:USEBYOTHERS). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3, Red Ventures has perverted everything under their purview and we don't actually have a requirement that sources are evaluated individually despite multiple editors claiming that we do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Support a blanket ban of all Red Ventures sites, per my comments in previous discussions. But I think a more reasonable cutoff date would be 2022, similar to what we do with CNET. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
    If we're blanket banning, maybe it's better to do option 4 to get an edit filter? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know how that would work with a cutoff date (i.e. I don't know if it is possible for an edit filter to detect when an article was published). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per much of the above. JM (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 as per above. Red Ventures poisons everything it touches. Cortador (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 They're so bad editore should need to explain why they use a link but I would oppose general deprecation. If some bit seems able to resist the overall fungus growth a RfC can be raised to say it is a more reliable. NadVolum (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per many above. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • No. I'm a bit skeptical that the print editions of Lonely Planet post-2020 have evidence of problems with them; they seem to be the same sort of thing as they were before the acquisitions. And those sources are useful; there's at least one GA on transport that use Lonely Planet guides (Driving in Madagascar), and it can be quite hard to find detailed English-language coverage of transport in (for example) the former French African colonies. I think that we shouldn't be overbroad when dealing with the publisher merely because of problems with some of their online content.
    I understand the issues with several properties owned by Red Ventures, but there is zero evidence that these sorts of issues have moved to Lonely Planet print guides—even a fairly detailed and independent investigation by The New York Times, as Chess has admitted above, found no evidence of AI use in such guides. As such, I think that this RfC is overbroad in its scope, and I think that the lack of nuance here would be harmful to our ability to create good articles going forward.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
  • No, per Red-tailed hawk. Already, we use RSP as a broad - often excessively broad - brush, with no room for accessing individual articles within sources for reliability. This is a step in the wrong direction, making that brush even broader with no room for accessing individual sources for reliability. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3: I find the evidence here compelling but deprecating is clearly impractical in this instance. But I would exclude print content, in particular from established brands such as Lonely Planet. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
  • 3 for websites. GUNREL still gives us the opportunity to evaluate specific cases. JoelleJay (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2: editors should be made aware (through RSP) of Chess's research and the risk of undisclosed AI use in any company owned by Red Ventures. However, given the breadth of sources this incorporates I would prefer to be more conservative in setting precedent. It may be that these issues only exist in web sources or under a particular CEO or in a particular time period or for certain companies where Red Venture has rolled out its AI apocalypse. In the case that there is consensus for option 3 (which I would prefer to no consensus), I would remind editors that reliability is evaluated with respect to a particular fact and so a "generally unreliable" company can create a source that is reliable for some facts. — Bilorv (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Basically same reason as BobFromBrockley and User:Red-tailed hawk, the websites should be regarded as generally unreliable, but print versions are fine. I don't think this exception makes this RfC invalid. Theepicosity (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or Option 4 (online websites affiliated with Red Ventures): Per arguments provided in the survey. Red Ventures company has a declared policy of producing AI-generated content in the articles of their online websites.[1] The online websites of the "Red Ventures" are unreliable. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • No basically per jp×g. Evaluate sources individually, don't evaluate owners of sources. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3/4: Per the points raised above. Isi96 (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Red Ventures)

Let the record reflect that "a permanent and open-ended blank-check deprecation of all websites and companies in whom a majority ownership is owned by this specific firm" is an obscene, authoritarian overreaction that goes far beyond even the most wildly expansive interpretation of what this noticeboard is set up, or within its remit, to do. Deprecation is already not a policy: it's something we made up on the spot to get rid of the Daily Mail in 2017, on the basis that the site had been so bad in so many ways for so many years that we needed to bypass our existing policies for an exigent emergency.

Now, seven years later, we want to set up a system for the indefinite future in which we deprecate dozens of websites, pre-emptively and without any evidence of their doing anything untrustworthy, on the basis that they get bought by a company that at one point owned a different website that had something bad on it? I realize that the stuff that's happened is annoying, and we want to "punish" them in some way, but Wikipedia is not a means for owning the libs or punishing our posting enemies or doing callout posts on venture capital firms. These may be noble goals, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. If we find it "too hard" to individually evaluate entire websites before making blanket bans on their use, well, maybe it is just "too hard" to edit Wikipedia and we need to take a break.

The idea that Red Ventures is going to try to "get around" a deprecation or a "judgment" by making new websites is total fantasy. Media companies, in general, do not exist for the purpose of being listed as reliable by Wikipedia, and they definitely do not exist for the purpose of being listed as reliable by an unofficial club of Wikipedians who maintain a list of what sources are reliable. The idea is risible: what proportion of traffic on a news site comes from people clicking links to that site in the references section of Wikipedia articles? A hundredth of a percent? A tenth of a percent? Do we have some fantasy where the Red Ventures guys see that they've been deprecated on Wikipedia, break into a sobbing fit, and tearfully promise repentance? I don't think they give a hoot -- it's just going to make it even more difficult for editors to write articles. We do not have an "guilty until proven innocent" system for allowing people to link to websites in article citations, and we should not try to create one out-of-process because we are mad online. jp×g🗯️ 04:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I addressed the idea that this is a mechanism to 'punish' Red Ventures above in another reply, so I won't repeat it here beyond to say that what you're saying is not how I intended my argument to come across. But re: to the idea that this is unprecedented and an overreach, we blanket ban collections of websites that share editorial teams all the time. Dotdash has a special entry at WP:RSP, and so does the WP:EPOCHTIMES as we deprecated all sources owned by that group including NTDTV and Kanzhongguo. We've done the same for WP:RT.COM. In cases where a larger organization enforces the same editorial policy on multiple purportedly independent websites, it's understood that they can be treated as a group as we're ultimately judging sources largely on their editorial policy.
When the stated editorial policy of Red Ventures is to fill websites with AI-generated content regardless of if its reliable, we shouldn't have to care about their convoluted organizational structure. It's the same people running the sites with the same content-creation tooling (their euphemism for AI) on the backend and that consistently combines to create unreliable content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The content of our articles should be determined by the quality of the sources that are available to write those articles. I am in favor of noting that the sites mentioned in this RfC should be used with extreme care (and that articles published on them after the implementation of these new editorial policies should be generally avoided). However, I am strongly opposed to preëmptive deprecation of sources that haven't done anything improper. This presumes a whitelist model of sourcing acceptability, which is emphatically not the way that this project has worked for the last twenty-three years.

There is no policy- or guideline- consistent basis for saying "this source is deprecated because we couldn't be arsed to look at it in detail". If we can't be arsed to look at something in detail, why would that RSN discussion matter more than a hypothetical situation in which somebody wanted to use a source in an article and was overruled by it?

The Dotdash entry says that there was no consensus on the company as a whole, and has a very long "notes" section detailing individual discussions (with differing consensi) on each of the sites in question. There is not consensus to give Dotdash a scarlet letter that immediately taints all companies it buys.

Conversely, with the other examples you give (Epoch Times, NTDTV, Kanzhongguo, RT), these are outlets in their own right, that have obvious direct editorial control over their subsidiaries; the subsidiaries being unacceptable for sourcing is obvious from the fact that they don't have any independent existence from the parent, and never did. The thing being proposed here is much more ambitious: we're trying to probe into corporate governance.

To get a little more down to brass tacks: what does it mean for a company to be "owned"? A majority stake? By shares? By class of stock? A majority stake of voting shares? Does owning 40% of a newspaper's stock mean you own the newspaper, if the rest of the ownership is split between different shareholders and none of them have more than 40%? What about the same situation, but your stake is 20%? What distinction do we make between portfolio companies, subsidiaries, and business units? What degree of integration or subordination between levels of executive management has to exist for us to say a company is really just a different company in a hat and trench coat? These aren't really questions that an encyclopedia should be in the business of determining. They should not determine the content of Wikipedia articles. We should judge sources based on whether the sources are good or bad. jp×g🗯️ 17:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
First off, I haven't !voted for deprecation for the reasons that you and others have gave. Blanket-banning isn't the right move here. Going by the rule of WP:GUNREL, the standard is Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Saying "most cases" gives us the ability to postpone where to draw the line in the grey area later. Much of your argument is that "deprecation is bad" but that's not what most people have called for at this discussion.
While I can see your point that this isn't analogous to Dotdash, I still believe that this is very similar to RT or the Epoch Times. As you said, the problem is with those outlets that have obvious direct editorial control over their subsidiaries and their lack of independence from the parent group. This is the same situation as Red Ventures; except Red Ventures is managing things at a higher level. Go read the article from Futurism about their policies: [27] They have the same guy (Lance Davis) that is the Vice President of Content for Financial Services for for CNET as well as its sister sites Bankrate and CreditCards.com. According to Red Ventures themselves, "He is responsible for overseeing and reviewing editorial content and is a member of the newsroom," And the editor in charge of their AI-generated content (Cameron Hurta) is the same person for all Red Ventures properties.
Red Ventures is not an organization that owns distinct websites with different editorial teams. While CNET and ZDNet used to be independent tech news websites, they are obviously not anymore. Red Ventures is a highly integrated company that has the same people creating unreliable content on all of their websites. As much as they try to avoid showing that in public, this is a fact that is supported by the consensus of reliable sources. If we're judging sources by whether they're good or bad, Red Ventures is with limited exceptions bad.
And in response to your last point about "brass tacks", you're splitting hairs prior to those issues being a problem. If we discover Red Ventures sites in the future that don't have these issues or don't neatly fit into this discussion, we can easily have another discussion at RSN. But from what I can see, most of their websites have the same issues, and I don't think we should start edge case poisoning the general point of the RfC by dealing with the possibility of a Red Ventures subsidiary having multiple classes of shares before that is shown to exist. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Chess: I'm re-reading the RfC prompt, and I noticed that you stated this applies to content published by sites during the period of time they were owned by Red Ventures (emphasis mine), but you mentioned Lonely Planet print guides in this comment. Are you seeking to have those included in this RfC, or merely seeking to discuss web content? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Red-tailed hawk: This is a really good point. I think I screwed up when writing this RfC in terms of clarity, since it seems most people view this as a network of websites. I think it's fair to apply this only to web content since most of the points I made here are about search-engine optimization, which obviously doesn't apply if its not a website. In all honesty, I intended it to apply to the print editions at first, but I think based on what everyone has said here + the New York Times rating Lonely Planet guidebooks as not AI-generated, we can put the print stuff from Red Ventures in a different category than their websites. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going to way into this individual RfC, but there examples where ownership by a head company has an editorial effect on all of the subsidiary media outlets that is toxic and we should consider that. Perhaps not to go so far as arguing for deprecation of all subsidiary outlets (which I don't really see happening here). E.g., Murdoch's empire, there is not a single one of his subsidiaries, in any country that is not tainted by Murdoch's editorial control. The talk shows in every country can not be relied upon when it comes to matters of fact, particularly in regards to politics, climate change or anything to do with any culture war issue. Why would we not as a matter of first principles declare every one of Murdoch's subsidiaries' talk shows to be WP:GUNREL without further analysis and save ourselves a lot of time? Note: WP:RSP already does that for those that have been discussed (AFAIK) but we could just save ourselves some time and generalise across all boundaries. Just a point for consideration that I thought could be abstracted to this situation. TarnishedPathtalk 10:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
All op eds, talk shows, and other opinion content should be rated GUNREL and only usable (rarely) when it's a subject matter expert or for the author's opinion. (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think Murdoch's talk shows are reliable even in those "rare" occasions you cite. TarnishedPathtalk 08:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
That's going to be a fair bit more controversial, but over the past few years WP:RSN has been heading in that direction. I would disagree with designating as unreliable all outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch as he's 92 and we don't know how the succession will play out. I would imagine the closest would be designating as unreliable News Corp, but the wide disparity between the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and books published by HarperCollins would make that nearly impossible. I don't think Murdoch is reusing the same generative AI engine to create content for Fox News and the WSJ, nor does he have a special director in charge of a unified plan to push affiliate marketing content. But if you want to treat this RfC as precedent to make your own about News Corp, go ahead. A lot of editors (not including me) would probably agree with you. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:29, 5 February 2024 (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.

Requesting closure for NGO Monitor RfC

Requested closure closed, closing this request for closure. nableezy - 01:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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


There were a discussion on NGO Monitor that led to a Request for Comment that was archived a few weeks ago without any conclusion being reached on what the consensus was. --2x2leax (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This is probably better-suited to WP:CR. The Kip 06:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
There is already a closure request at WP:CR. It's overdue, in fact. Loki (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Probably should mention that I added NGO Monitor to WP:RSP when the discussion was archived based on what I feel is a fairly obvious reading of what the consensus was, and that this was reverted by Alaexis. Loki (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough that a formal closure by an uninvolved editor is appropriate. That said, I agree with Loki's read of what the consensus was and that it was a fairly obvious read. I'd support the addition to WP:RSP of language similar to what Loki used, including noting editors' concerns about past attempts by NGO Monitor staff to manipulate Wikipedia's coverage of itself and its personnel. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I've also now unarchived it. Loki (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I think that given the contentiousness of the topic, it's better to have a formal closure. Alaexis¿question? 10:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Quite fair. I do hope that closure can happen soon. Discussion had drawn down and stabilized, yet the un-archival appears to have prompted reiteration of questions and comments that seem already trod. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2024 (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.

MXDWN

How reliable is mxdwn.com, specifically for entertainment related articles? This is their about page and this is their editor-in-chief (I am not sure if this person would be considered an industry professional or journalist). Spinixster (chat!) 03:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Is the Sustainability of Digital Formats website from the Library of Congress's Digital Preservation program a reliable source regarding licensing and openness of container and compression file formats?

Most Library of Congress format descriptions include assessments about licensing and openness (in the Disclosure field of the "Sustainability factors" section) of many common media formats. Is this information technically and legally reliable to support the assessment of these formats as "open format" and "free format" in {{Infobox file format}}? Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably as good as it gets, yes. Bon courage (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.goedkoopvliegenclub.nl/

This website looks more like internet and twitter scraping then a real news website. In their disclaimer they state: De redactie van deze club / site vergaart zijn informatie uit openbaar toegankelijke bronnen. Hiermee kan geen garantie gegeven worden op de kwaliteit van de informatie of leveranciers. Nader onderzoek van zakenpartners is de verantwoordelijkheid van degene die een transactie aangaat. De redactie aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor kosten en schades die bezoekers lijden als gevolg van aanbevelingen in de club of deze site. Overname van artikelen is toegestaan mits bronvermelding (English: The editorial team of this club/site collects its information from publicly accessible sources. This does not guarantee the quality of the information or suppliers. Further investigation of business partners is the responsibility of the person entering into a transaction. The editors accept no liability for costs and damages that visitors suffer as a result of recommendations in the club or this site. Reproduction of articles is permitted provided the source is stated)

To me, this looks like a source that needs to be avoided. The Banner talk 13:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a plain old news aggregator. Definitely not usable, better to consider using the content it aggregates to cite things. TLAtlak 04:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Among others a personal witter-account? The Banner talk 19:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Artnet News + artist's estates

I recently cited Artnet News in the Mark Rothko article as the source for several specific details (# of paintings returned by Rothko's gallery to his children and foundation after a post-death lawsuit, additional context as well). Wondering, both in this specific context, and in general, how to evaluate Artnet News' reliability and appropriateness.

This source is the news publication/editorial arm of Artnet, which is a company primarily known for its auction history and price database. The publication is generally considered reliable as a source for news on arts exhibitions and the art world. They also often include more specific detail in many of their articles on the art market than higher profile art publications or general news sources that also cover art. But obviously this is still the editorial arm of a commercial entity with financial stakes in the art market; does this seeming conflict of interest make this source unreliable on issues that have to deal specifically with the art market?

In this case, the cited article details how multiple descendants of famous artists have had to deal with the financial/legal/logistical hurdles of managing their families' estates, which usually comprise a significant amount of artwork by the artist. These are details that are not usually made public, and while I'm sure the reporter worked hard to get the scoops, the question could certainly be asked if the company's financial interests impacted the access or editorial process.

I think there are a lot of questions to be asked about arts publications in general and their editorial independence (as much as I may love their writing and coverage), but I wanted to ask about this as Artnet News has only been glancingly discussed in the archives. I personally think it's still reliable in this case and that the parent company's financial interests don't impact their reporting, but I wanted a second opinion. Thanks in advance! 19h00s (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes there is a COI there, but no more than any news company which is owned by a for profit entity (which is most of them BTW). I've found Artnet News to be generally reliable and editorially independent. As for impacting access... Is that actually an issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense to me and that's my feeling as well. Appreciate the second set of eyes on this! Thanks :) 19h00s (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Artnet News is good trade press IME. They even kept their coverage pretty good in the NFT boom, with all the grey money that came along with that - David Gerard (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

David Irving

David Irving's The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe is being cited in Dornier Do 19 and Junkers Ju 89 to cite a quote by Herman Goering. While this was written before he went full Holocaust Denial, do we really want to be using him as a source. Irving has been discussed here before Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#David_Irving_--_The_Mare's_Nest and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_323#David_Irving_and_Hitler's_dogs.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't cite him as he's a writer not a historian as determined by the Lipstadt verdict. Reegards Keith-264 (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Nor would I his history is so heavily filtered through his politics he should never be cited. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Irving's credibility as a serious historian was under question long before the Lipstadt trial etc. I have little doubt that more credible sources could be found discussing the Luftwaffe's abandonment of heavy bomber development in the late 1930's, and explaining why they arrived at this decision can hopefully be done in a manner that doesn't involve a context-free anecdote from Göring, regardless of whether it is authentic. A questionable source, being cited for something that shouldn't be in the article anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. At issue is not only the citation of a discredited author (Irving) but also the dependence on an anecdote from a historical participant rather than on analysis from more recent scholarship. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The Dornier Do 19 article also references Richard Suchenwirth [de] - who does appear to have been a historian who was an actual Nazi rather then a sympathiser - to argue that Germany's lack of a heavy bomber significantly damaged Germany's war effort.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I have seen better sources for that claim, its not new or controversial. Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi all, it seems I am guilty of occasioning this current debate with my edit of the Dornier Do 19 article with this edit. Although I was forgiving of Irving in my edit summary, he is indeed persona non grata. I cited Suchenwirth about the 'Ural Bomber' fiasco, because I had been working my way through his Command & Leadership monograph without having actually read the de:wp article. Immediately after making my edit, I found on the very next page a cite for the "how big my bombers are" quote: USAF Historical Studies, No. 174, Pt. 1, pp. 36 [pdf 53] and Pt. 2, p. 303 [pdf 137]. See also Studies Nos. 160 & 189 on the same page. Whatever his politics, Suchenwirth's studies appear to be well-referenced, having interviewed the majority of interested parties after the war. He seems to be equally scathing about most of the topmost players (Milch, Jeschonnek, Udet and Göring), apart from Walther Wever, who seems to have been an especially capable leader; Suchenwirth's assessment of Wever seems close to hero-worship. Anyway, is there any earlier reference to Göring's throwaway line? How far does 'later scholarship' depend on Suchenwirth? Is he similarly discredited? MinorProphet (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn’t the relevant volume of the German history of the war cover this material? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Irving was found by the judge in the libel action he brought against Deborah Lipstadt to not be a historian, and was long regarded as not being reliable by other historians. The expert report prepared for the trial by Richard J. Evans notes that Irving included falsifications of history in works concerning Nazi Germany not directly about the Holocaust, including from an early stage of his career as a 'historian'. As such, Irving is not a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
One of the specific findings in the Lipstadt libel action is that Irving could not be trusted to accurately quote and/or translate a source. These problems existed well before his turn to Holocaust denial. He's not usable as a source. Mackensen (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
It's hard to see how anything published by Irving and nowhere else could be WP:DUE. For our purposes, he is not a subject expert or a reliable source on any subject, and, to cite a much misused policy essay, WP:NONAZIS.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Do we make an exception for The Mare's Nest (his first or second book, I think), about the V-2 program? Our own article vouches for it: "The book has been widely cited by authors covering the V-weapons programme. Even after Irving's reputation was destroyed after his exposure as a Holocaust denier, Michael J. Neufeld of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum has described The Mare's Nest as 'the most complete account on both Allied and German sides of the V-weapons campaign in the last two years of the war.'" Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't think so, no. First of all, the book is sixty years old. That's an eternity in World War II scholarship. Second, if Irving is the sole source for a claim, then the claim is doubtful and/or undue. Third, Neufeld went on to note that Irving "minimized the Mittelwerk/Nordhausen story about which he certainly knew more." Fourth, citing Irving anywhere will encourage citing him elsewhere which we shouldn't do given that we know most of works have serious problems. We can and should do better. Mackensen (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Prioryman. wrote about how he worked around this in an opinion piece in 2013. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The approach outlined in that op-ed seems good to me. We should subcontract to other scholars, preferably where people are writing after the problematic nature of Irving's scholarship and beliefs ("I am a baby Arian, not Jewish or sectarian, I have no plans to marry an ape or Rastafarian...") became clear. If a qualified historian believes his scholarship is still useful in establishing facts occurring in the Nazi period, the we can attribute the facts in question to them. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

MEDRS sources on curcumin supplementation

On Talk:Curcuminoid, I proposed the following studies as WP:MEDRS sources: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41].

My main motivation is to expand the current Curcuminoid#Research section (or Curcumin#Medical research), which seemed somewhat lacking and outdated to me regarding recent research and the actual results of research conducted so far. However, Zefr pointed out some issues with the sources, which in their opinion make the studies non-compliant with WP:MEDRS, so I would like to build a consensus on these, before using them in the article. Here's the list of issues pointed out and my reply to/interpretation of them.

  • "low quality": WP:MEDRS only talks about quality in specific aspects that are easy (or even possible) to verify, such as WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDRS#Predatory journals. Since all of my sources are systematic reviews/meta-analyses of human RCTs or guidelines, they pass WP:MEDASSESS. As for predatory journals and journal quality, see the last point.
  • "limitations raising doubts about the quality"/"too many limitations": WP:MEDRS makes no mention of limitations. In fact, all studies have limitations ([42], [43]) and it is the job of the scientists publishing and peer-reviewing the study to decide whether those invalidate the reported results or not. ([44])
  • "small sample": WP:MEDRS makes no mention of sample sizes. Deciding whether the sample size is large enough should be done by the statistical analysis (determining significance) in the study.
  • "inadequate research"/"limited, unconvincing results"/"weak underlying studies": these are arguably subjective, so it's unsurprising that WP:MEDRS mentions nothing of the sort. Even if a finding is weak or limited, Wikipedia may report on it, for example here: "The American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) and World Cancer Research Fund International (WCRF) concluded in a 2018 report that there is limited but suggestive evidence that foods containing heme iron increase risk of colorectal cancer." (Heme#Cancer). I fully agree with Anastrophe that weak science is not necessarily bad science ([45]).
  • "unacceptable altmed journals": WP:MEDRS#Predatory journals indeed should be avoided, but I know of no specific restrictions/Wikipedia guidelines about "altmed" journals. In particular, the following journals have been brought into question:
    • BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies: BioMed Central does not point to any predatory (or otherwise problematic) publishing.
    • Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine: I did not manage to find much information on this one, but it is used in some other articles too. ([46])
    • Phytotherapy Research: Phytotherapy Research mentions no issues with it.
    • International Journal of Molecular Sciences: International Journal of Molecular Sciences does not mention any concrete issues with it. However, since it is from MDPI, which is a borderline source, I agree that some more scrutiny is warranted, but I found no problems with this particular study ([47]) or journal.

Do you think the studies above qualify as WP:MEDRS sources? If not, what is the concrete problem that disqualifies them? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I've notified editors at Talk:MEDRS as they're most likely to have expertise with these types of questions. Schazjmd (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bon courage, Headbomb , David notMD, Psychologist Guy, do any of you have any interest in helping evaluate these sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Bendegúz Ács is a new editor with a poor understanding of evidence-based medicine. As I explained in some of my posts on the talk-page of Curcuminoid, I can relate to this because in the earlier years of my editing on this website I had a poor understanding as well. Similar to this user, I used to look for any systematic review for beneficial health claims without looking at the quality of the journal, if the data is consistent or reading through the methodology of the reviews and only quoting the abstracts. This is a common issue I see with many new editors who dive into medical topics for health and disease claims. The pattern is always the same. Just because a systematic review has been published does not automatically mean it is good.
Most of the journals this user is citing are not reliable, it has been explained on the talk-page why this is. The user raises the topic of The American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) and World Cancer Research Fund International (WCRF) here. I was the user who added that content a long time ago to the heme article. What this user does not mention is that there is a difference between quoting a cancer authority like the American Institute for Cancer Research who have looked through hundreds of papers and meta-analyses and just quoting from a single meta-analysis. We wouldn't use the latter if we are talking about limited evidence but if an authority has reported on this after looking at the totality of evidence, it is worth citing. The user has not looked at WP:MEDORG. Users Bon courage, zefr and David notMD have a lot more experience with this, maybe they can help this user. Unfortunately from experience most new editors in this topic area are not willing to listen. I am not saying Bendegúz Ács is a sock-puppet but their editing is similar to 3 other accounts I have had experience with, one of these was Atchoum. If you also check the archive for Curcumin a lot of the claims this user is making have already been made before. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I am a new editor, but I would like to think that my understanding of WP:MEDRS is pretty solid, after carefully reading and examining it - I have even had some minor contributions ([48]) to the page in that process.
I fully agree about not "blindly" accepting any systematic reviews. However, I do think that any potential issues that would disqualify a source should be explained in detail in WP:MEDRS, especially so that new users can have a chance of learning the process of finding good sources.
"Most of the journals this user is citing are not reliable": this has not been proven, and as I mentioned it there, WP:CITEWATCH gives explicit instructions for both MDPI and Frontiers Media to "Evaluate on a case by case basis", which is not the same as "not reliable" at all.
I only mentioned heme as an example where Wikipedia cites weak ("limited" in the text) evidence. I do think that content is great, and similar content could be written about curcumin (or curcuminoid), based on my sources.
"We wouldn't use the latter if we are talking about limited evidence": this is not mentioned by WP:MEDRS. Also, what determines whether an evidence is limited or weak?
I have looked at WP:MEDORG, but WP:MEDRS (or WP:MEDORG in particular) does not say that only official guidelines or position statements are acceptable, even for any particular claim. It also does not say that these sources are generally better than meta-analyses.
This is my first and only Wikipedia account, and I am absolutely willing to listen. I suspect one reason why my editing is similar to that of some other accounts could be that they also base their judgement of studies solely on WP:MEDRS. I think our common goal should be to improve our editing guidelines, such as WP:MEDRS, so that it will actually be enough for new editors to read and understand that document, rather than having to ask for reviewing the sources in a noticeboard like this.
I have looked at the archive, and the issue was indeed mentioned there before, but not the concrete studies. Zefr specifically asked one user there to propose specific WP:MEDRS reviews, which is what I am trying to do now (see Talk:Curcumin/Archive_1#Missing data). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm reading WP:MEDRS, and at least for now I share Bendegúz Ács's confusion about the objections. Meta analyses published in academic journals with editorial boards seem to fall at the top of the WP:MEDASSESS pyramid on the left (and therefore accepted) side of the WP:MEDORG chart. I'll add that Complementary and Integrative Medicine is published by De Gruyter, and Phytotherapy is published by Wiley & Sons, both academic publishers with strong reputations for quality work. I'm most concerned about the journal published by MDPI, because I'm familiar with how hit or miss they are.
Reading the talk page (permanent link), I'm struggling to see much beyond Bendegúz Ács pointing out that Citewatch recommends examining journals from publishers like Frontiers and MDPI (though in any case none of the four sources asked about on this noticeboard are Frontiers-published, so the Frontiers matter exists only on the curcuminoid talk page) on a case by case basis and other editors straightforwardly saying the journals are unreliable (instead of explaining the reasons for drawing that conclusion, e. g. criticism from sources accepted as reliable, etc.).
For medical topics, a lot of caution is definitely appropriate, so I'm not saying anyone should rush to restore this material to the page. What I mean is that I see how a straightforward, good faith reading of the WP:MEDRS content guideline can lead one to the conclusion that these sources are appropriate to cite. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, there is some nuance to MEDRS and it's easy for veteran editors to become jaded enough by the constant pro-FRINGE additions that we regard any new editors with suspicion. It's something to keep in mind. What @Bon courage mentioned regarding EXCEPTIONAL might be worth reiterating explicitly somewhere on MEDRS, as it is an important part of assessing DUE that might not be clear to people who aren't familiar with all the guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
We may have to take these one by one. Here's an example of how to evaluate sources using the first one linked above. Perhaps someone else will follow the pattern for another.
Overall conclusion: This first source meets the MEDRS ideal.
The next step here is note that "meeting the MEDRS ideal" does not mean you can write anything you want. It may be the ideal type of source, but that does not mean that it is reliable for any statement at all. An appropriate statement for this source might sound somewhat closer to the "promising candidate for further research" end of the spectrum than the "will solve all the world's problems" end. This is because (@Zefr, please note) although it is possible to write an extremely high-quality review from low-quality studies – Cochrane does that all the time – you cannot get definitive conclusions from (exclusively) low-quality data. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent example evaluation, it also helped me understand the guideline and its application better! Should I separate the sources here to help the review process or write specific article content proposals based on them? Is there anything else I could do to help? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Zefr, Psychologist Guy, P-Makoto, WhatamIdoing could we reach some form of consensus here?
Do you find the following an acceptable compromise?
  • I will not change the current content of the articles, only add new content
  • I will add content with proper attribution and pointing out the weaknesses in the text, such as "However, the current evidence is limited and has a relatively high heterogeneity."
  • I will add the specific findings of the studies (e.g. "A 2023 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found that turmeric/curcumin supplementation reduces levels of inflammatory markers, including CRP, TNF-α, and IL-6.")
  • I will only use the first 12 sources, excluding the overarching MDPI review
  • If something is problematic or not perfect with the content I add, please try to improve it or engage in discussion with me and the others here, rather than reverting (as per WP:ONLYREVERT and WP:PARTR)
Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Use of curcumin for treating any disease is far outside the boundaries of significant scientific agreement and conventional clinical practice. Accordingly, mention of research on it in the curcuminoid article is WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. It is reasonably safe to conclude that curcumin cannot and will not ever be developed as a prescription drug. Mention of research on it is WP:PROFRINGE, potentially misleading general users into believing it may actually be under serious study as a drug candidate - it is not. The sources offered above do not justify addition to the existing status of the curcuminoid research section or the curcumin article. Zefr (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Aspirin isn't a prescription drug, either, and yet we have an article that talks about medical uses. Did you mean "regulated pharmaceutical product"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
"Use of curcumin for treating any disease is far outside the boundaries of significant scientific agreement and conventional clinical practice.": this may very well be entirely true. However, not every health effect can be considered "treating a disease". How about prevention, including general risk reduction, or symptom reduction?
"it may actually be under serious study as a drug candidate - it is not": the page of the government agency I linked above ([49]) says otherwise: "Investigations into products that may aid in the prevention of cancer and the treatment of precancerous lesions are important for the development of early intervention strategies and treatments. A few studies have investigated the potential clinical benefit of curcumin-containing products, and other studies are under way. See ClinicalTrials.gov." Even one of the current sources ([50]) in the curcuminoid research section has text that contradicts that: "Many researchers are still optimistic about curcumin. “There is evidence that the biological activity of curcumoids is real,” says Julie Ryan, a radiation oncologist at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York. She says that it interacts with many different proteins and so works differently from many drugs. Ryan has tested curcumin in clinical trials for dermatitis on more than 600 people. Although she found no significant effect, she says there were trends that warrant further study. She thinks that chemically modified forms of curcumin might prove more effective at reaching tissues." I have also found two studies from the same journal as the ones in the article (Journal of Medicinal Chemistry) that report investigations about curcumin ([51], [52]) and are newer than the ones there. Make no mistake, I am not proposing using these sources, since they are preliminary research, but in my interpretation, they show that it is under serious study.
But in any case, the fact that it has not been approved as a medication does not mean that it has no health effects.
One major claim of the current sources (all from 2017) in the curcuminoid research section is that "No double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial of curcumin has been successful." Based on the sources I linked above (much newer than 2017), this doesn't seem to be true anymore and reporting the latest results would be a great improvement to the article. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
About it may actually be under serious study as a drug candidate - it is not": It doesn't matter. Whether something is, or isn't, under "serious study" as a drug candidate is not WP:Biomedical information. It is not a claim about health effects in humans. That is a claim about a business decision, which involves not just predictions of the likelihood of success, but also predictions of the likely costs and potential payoffs. MEDRS does not apply to business decisions, because there are no high-quality clinical trials in whether or not businesses choose to invest in research for a given area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Honestly I wouldn't trust any CAM journals for medical claims made in wikivoice. We want to be a summary of what evidence-based allopathic medicine says on a topic, and if it doesn't say anything then it's better to leave it out or at least make sure it's attributed in-text. JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I would be absolutely fine with adding in-text attribution due to the conflicting views here. However, I think including these sources in such a way would be an improvement and thus should be done, since I don't know of any guidelines specifically prohibiting citing CAM journals. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Cite sources, don't describe them. This thing about "A 2023 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found that..." is not proper encyclopedic style. I know it's popular, but it's not a good idea. If you've got a recent meta-analysis in a good journal (and it's not some weird UNDUE outlier), then you should just state the results. Be careful not to overstate them, but just state them directly, simply, and concisely.
(See also WP:MEDLANG on why we avoid the term allopathic as much as possible.)
@Bendegúz Ács, I suspect that a better path forward here is to make one small change, with a gold-plated source from a stellar journal. Start with Arch Derm Res, that Nature journal and Nutrition Reviews; if you can get two sentences into one article without getting reverted, then come back in a week or two (or five) and maybe expand it by using the Cytokine, Journal of Functional Foods, and/or Phytotherapy Research sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't use Scientific Reports for anything much. Bon courage (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:ATTRIBUTE would be ok to use so as to put it the source's mouth and not wikivoice. I don't see much of an issue otherwise with decent wording. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Do you really feel a need to use in-text attribution for a statement like They have poor solubility in water at acidic and physiological pH, and also hydrolyze rapidly in alkaline solutions? I don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
If this is a generally accepted view, it should be mentioned on some page (marked as an unreliable source, for example). However, it does seem like it's used a lot on Wikipedia ([53]). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting we use "allopathic" in our article. And I mention attribution only as a last resort--if we really need to include a study from a CAM journal we should be clear it's from a CAM journal. JoelleJay (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Curcumin-in-medicine is particularly difficult since there is a widespread view that the entire field has been compromised by research fraud (see for example[54]). I'd be inclined to treat any claim about human health effects of curcumin as WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and to ensure that Wikipedia is reflecting truly 'accepted knowledge' only be interested when/if major WP:MEDORGs start taking an interest in the substance, rather than must-publish-something scientists straining for significance. Bon courage (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    The removed content includes statements such as:
    • Many curcumin characters are unsuitable for use as drugs by themselves. They have poor solubility in water at acidic and physiological pH, and also hydrolyze rapidly in alkaline solutions.
    • A drug design with curcuminoids in complex with micelles could be one solution of the insolubility of the curcuminoids. The curcuminoids would be in complex with the core of the micelles similar to the complex inside the cyclodextrins. The micelles are dissolved in a suitable solvent where the headgroups of the micelles interact with the solvent.
    • Curcuminoids as loaded solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN) have been developed with great success by using microemulsion technique. The loading capacity, the mean particle size and size distribution are all factors that have to be considered when the effects of curcuminoids in different strength are observed because it could variate.
    • The advantages of SLN are the possibilities of controlled drug release and drug targeting, protection of incorporated compound against chemical degradation, no biotoxicity of the carrier, avoidance of organic solvent and no problems with respect to large scale production.
    • In vitro studies show a prolonged release of curcuminoids from the nanoparticle preparate up to 12 hours and the curcuminoids maintained their physical and chemical stability after 6 months of storage in the absence of light at room temperature. The sensitivity of curcuminoids to light and oxygen is greatly reduced by formulation of curcuminoids in SLN.
    • Solid lipid nanoparticles preparate has been developed for cosmetics where the curcuminoids are used in cream base.
    • But there are some stability issues which have not been overcome yet, further studies need to be done to find a suitable formulation which can be carried out in order to prolong the stability of the curcuminoids.
    • Nevertheless, there have been improvements in formulation of some stable model cream preparations with SLN curcuminoids.
    • It is suggested that most of the curcuminoids are incorporated at the SLN surface where they are diffused into the cream matrix until a steady state is reached. At this state the curcuminoids go from the cream to the dissolution medium.
    • A possible burst release in creams containing curcuminoids have been reported where the curcuminoids are rapidly released in a sufficient amount from the cream into the skin and is followed by a controlled release.
    • When SLN are prepared by microemulsion at a temperature with the range of 70–75 °C an oil-in-water microemulsion is spontaneously formed. The SLN are obtained immediately when they are dispersed in the warm microemulsion into cold water, with the help of a homogenizer.
    • The cold water facilitates a rapid crystallization of the lipids and therefore prevents aggregation of the lipids. After freeze drying the yellow curcuminoids containing SLN were obtained and could easily be redispersed in water and the model cream. The SLN have uniform distribution and according to electron micrograph scan they had a spherical shape and smooth surface.
    • It has been reported that increasing the lipid content over 5–10%(w/w) increased the mean particle size and broader size distribution in most common cases. That range should there for be ideal concentration for formulation of the SLN.
    • Incorporation is one thing that needs to be considered in formulation of SLN. Concentration of the lipid, emulsifier and co-emulsifier solution is a key factor on this conversion of the SLN. If the amount of emulsifier and co-emulsifier are increased but the lipid amount is constant the surface of the SLN which is formed will be too small to adsorb all the surfactant and co-surfactant molecules, and a formation of curcuminoids solution micelles will be created. This will then increase the water solubility of the curcuminoids and they could partition from the SLN into the micelles that were formed during a wash procedure. This will reduce the final incorporation efficacy on the surface of the SLN.
    • The curcumin derivatives demethoxycurcumin and bisdemethoxycurcumin have, like curcumin itself, been tested for their antioxidant activities in vitro.
    • Antioxidants can be used to extend the shelf life for food and maintain their safety, nutritional quality, functionality and palatability. Pure chemicals of curcumin and its derivatives are not available in the open market.
    • This isolation method was used to demonstrate the antioxidant activities of curcuminoids, where they isolated pure curcuminoids from the main liquor. One research reported that curcumin was the strongest antioxidant, demethoxycurcumin the second strongest and bisdemethoxycurcumin the least effective. Curcuminoids nevertheless showed activity against oxidation.
    • Curcuminoids act as a superoxide radical scavenger as well as singlet oxygen quencher and gives the antioxidant its effectiveness. Tetrahydrocurcumin, one of the main metabolites of curcumin, is the most potent antioxidant among the naturally occurring curcuminoids.
    • The curcuminoids are capable of inhibiting damage to super coiled plasmid DNA by hydroxyl radicals. It was concluded that the derivatives of curcumin are good in trapping the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical as efficiently as curcumin which is a well known antioxidant.
    Most of this is about carrier bases and cosmetics. There's nothing in here about human health effects, unless you start from the POV that accurately identifying something as an antioxidant is itself a inherently and always claim that the substance improves human health. I don't think that's a fair POV. Rust inhibitors are antioxidants, and yet nobody thinks that swigging a bottle of Rust-Oleum is going to improve their health. (Also, we need an article on the antioxidant paradox.)
    Most of this content was replaced with a claim, sourced to news and review articles from 2016 and 2017, that Everybody Knows™ that curcumin is never going to produce a commercially successful pharmaceutical drug. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    This is indeed very important to mention and emphasize, but I don't think it's enough to automatically invalidate all claims about health effects. Even the article you linked shows that there are many research papers published that don't reference Aggarwal's work, and I have also verified that the individual RCTs in the sources I am proposing are not from Aggarwal.
    Your overall approach about WP:EXCEPTIONAL does sound reasonable, but I would like to have this in WP:MEDRS itself, because this is an important and severe restriction - it is much easier to find WP:MEDRS journal articles than WP:MEDRS guidelines from WP:MEDORGs. Especially since WP:EXCEPTIONAL's "multiple high-quality sources" could also be interpreted as "multiple fully WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, including journal articles". Based on this interpretation, I think my sources would at least be enough for some more content in the articles' Research sections. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    As JoelleJay says above, the usual problem in the "SCAM" topics ("supplements, complementary, and alternative medicine") area is that someone will write something that is clearly not a human health claim, like "This substance is red" or "It is used in cosmetics", and one of our zealous anti-woo warriors will revert it because they don't want Wikipedia to say anything positive, or preferably even neutral, about a substance that someone might want to swallow in a misguided quest for better health.
    It is very easy for these editors to become cynical, and our software is set up to send them biased feedback. You can only get 'thanked' if you revert someone; there's no button to push when you check an edit and decide that it's good enough. So you review 100 edits, revert five – and it's always one of those reverts that gets encouraging feedback, not the ones that you left alone. This results in editors slowly developing the view that the community approves of reverting, appreciates reverting, and maybe even wants a little more of it. You start seeing yourself as the Defender of the Wiki as well as the Protector of the Ignorant Masses. It's very hard to maintain a balance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, it's important to reserve WP:MEDRS for WP:BMI, and I think it's worth keeping a particular watch on claims of health benefits (and harms) in general. Personally I'm less concerned even with some other biomedical aspects, like pharmacology. Given the context for the curcumin research field I would be uncomfortable about Wikipedia given credence to curcumin for health claims while at the same time the FDA is busy rebuking companies for making these kinds of claims (e.g.[55]). So yes, I'd be thinking WP:EXCEPTIONAL could be a useful standard here. Bon courage (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
    Do you see anything in the sentences quoted above that looks EXCEPTIONAL to you? (That first bullet point probably explains why swallowing a capsule of turmeric is pretty pointless.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
    Nope. It's really just benefits and harms which would get my EXCEPTIONAL antenna twitching. Bon courage (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
    I absolutely agree, and this issue is similar to the recent discussion on the WikiProject Medicine talk page. The communication towards new editors should be improved, but I find it even more important that WP:MEDRS is complete, so that there are no "shadow rules" that some experienced editors respect, but are not stated anywhere, so new editors have no chance of knowing. So far, I've seen the following "shadow rules":
    • study limitations should be taken into account, if there are too many or they are too significant, the source is invalid
    • small sample sizes invalidate sources/results
    • altmed/CAM/MDPI/Frontiers Media/Scientific Reports journals are unacceptable (or at least require attribution)
    • health claims in areas that experienced (substantial?) research fraud are WP:EXCEPTIONAL and thus require WP:MEDORG sources. A related assumption is that WP:MEDORG sources are always better than journal articles in terms of quality, or perhaps WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require clinical practice guidelines (on the top of the left pyramid in WP:MEDASSESS) or just multiple strong WP:MEDRS sources.
    I could probably add a few more, but these are the most important/sensible ones I've seen in the replies I have received so far.
    Now I feel like I am at an impasse here, for two reasons. First, there seems to be no explicitly stated concensus about these rules, so it wouldn't feel fair to comply with them, especially since they seem to require a wider discussion and concensus. Second, it also wouldn't feel fair to completely ignore them, since I have to acknowledge that I am a much less experienced editor than the ones who told me these rules, and this could potentially cause more reverts and conflicts. Do you have any recommendation on how to resolve this deadlock? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
    It's not right to think everything can be codified into "rules", especially for a niche twig on a niche branch like curcumin-as-biomedicine. The bottom line is that Wikipedia needs to be reflecting accepted knowledge as reflected in high quality published sources, and that objective draws on nearly all Wikipedia's principal WP:PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
    Of course, I am not focusing here only on curcumin-as-biomedicine. The "shadow rules" I mentioned seem to be much more generic than to be limited to that niche twig of a niche branch.
    I am also not saying that everything should be codified, but I do think it is a reasonable expectation that if a new editor thoroughly reads and thus fully understands WP:MEDRS, they should not encounter reverts where much more experienced editors claim that the sources they deemed WP:MEDRS based on their understanding are, in fact, not. Of course, here I am not talking about cases where the new editor fails to understands some part of WP:MEDRS and that leads them to an incorrect decision. Do you think this expectation is unreasonable?
    In my, admittedly perhaps somewhat idealistic, understanding, WP:MEDRS (and the underlying WP:RS) should be enough to decide what is "accepted knowledge as reflected in high quality published sources" in medical topics. Even if this may not the case today, don't you think that we should strive to achieve this? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
    Of more concern is the inherent contradiction between the first two suggested "shadow rules" and the MEDRS rule that Wikipedia editors should not perform peer review themselves. That means, among other things, that Wikipedia editors should not be saying that a reliable source can't be used at all because – in the personal opinion of the Wikipedia editor – the sample size was too small, or that the study limitations are too big. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
    I agree, do you have any comment on this, Zefr? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    I think if a reader has "thoroughly" understood MEDRS they'll know it's not an algorithm that can be used to decide "reliability" by rote as a property of any source, as evaluation of context on a case-by-case basis is inherent (remember the image of the spinning plate). Source suitability can almost never be reduced to a traffic light system (much as some editors strive for this) because always WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. And ultimately MEDRS is just a guideline helping to identify good sources. There are then policies determining whether stuff should actually be in articles, including WP:VNOT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Bon courage (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    For example: MEDRS does not give editors an excuse to reject a source entirely because the Wikipedia editor has decided that the sample size is too small (even though real-world peer review accepted it). However, Wikipedia editors do have to think about the text that the source can support. Even a top-quality, gold-plated MEDRS ideal source is not useful for writing "Wonderpam is scientifically proven to cure all ills". A source based on limited information might only be useful for a statement like "Wonderpam has been researched" or "Wonderpam is sometimes used as a treatment for scaryitis" (or other suitably weak statements). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    And in reality I can recall times at WT:MED and elsewhere when a apparently 'MEDRS' source has been rejected because it's obviously flawed (e.g. it's clearly nonsense, funded by Big Tobacco, claiming human health effects citing animal research). In truth there is a "shadow rule" for all Wikipedia, in that generally speaking reasonable people will form consensus through evidence and reasonable discussion, rather than totally relying on "the rules". It's not even really a "shadow" rule in that it's codified in the WP:IAR policy. But the WP:PAGs are useful lies to children, and are a handy discussion shortcut in obvious cases. Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    I think that WP:DUE is another important not-so-secret 'shadow rule' here. If the MEDRS-style source says something significantly different from all the other similar quality sources, you don't have to go into stuff about Big Tobacco; the tiny-minority POV shouldn't be presented in the article no matter how good the source is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, and for obviously flawed sources, we should definitely override the general guidelines. But so far, no one has pointed out any specific obvious flaws in these sources that would require overriding the guidelines.
    By the way, even I have an example: the first source that I wanted to use for the Curcuminoid article and which was included in the edit that was reverted and which revert started this whole discussion. This source claimed that it was based on "randomized controlled trials", but one of the trials included was not randomized at all and this trial had a significant impact on the results. But I have not found such an issue with the sources I mentioned in this noticeboard. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree with all those principles. But I feel like if the question is whether a particular source can be considered WP:MEDRS, any reasoning against it should be based on the text of WP:MEDRS in some way. So for example, if it stated something along the lines of "The most reliable statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies are often better sources than even the best journal articles", I would have no problem accepting your argument that WP:EXCEPTIONAL means in this case that only WP:MEDORG sources are okay for health effects of turmeric. Based on WP:MEDRS's current text, this interpretation is not obvious at all (see "the reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals").
    Whether any content should be written based on these sources is another question, and most of the negative comments I received did not argue against that, they argued against the sources themselves. If you would like to discuss this aspect, I would like you to examine this particular statement in the current Curcumin medical research section: "According to a 2017 review of more than 120 studies, curcumin has not been successful in any clinical trial". Don't you think that if, assuming that the source supporting this statement ([56]) and my sources are of equal quality (apart from mine being much newer), including at least both would make the article better? I'm asking this because my sources show that this statement from 2017 is no longer true. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    @Bendegúz Ács, I must admit I haven't followed the discussion closely, but it seems to me that you might have been distracted by the many advice you’ve got and also the many Wikipedia’s rules and essays (WP:UPPERCASE).
    I don’t think we have any “shadow rules”. It’s more about common sense, editorial judgement (and good knowledge of the subject, e.g., from extensive reading before you do your editing) and likely some experience as well. IMO the most important rule here perhaps is WP:IAR, which Bon courage has pointed to you already. You may want to WP:BE BOLD as well. We don’t need permission from anyone to edit. There’s no hierarchy here. You said you’ve read through WP:MEDRS and fully understand it. Edit war of course is not the way to go. But as others have suggested, you can just try adding some content bit by bit using the sources that you are most confident with, and with carefully chosen wordings. I think you’ve got many good advice from some of our very experienced users already. No one can promise your edit won’t be reverted without knowing what content/text you would actually add. As WAID already told you, a good MEDRS source that can be used doesn’t guarantee you can write whatever claims with it. I have highlighted the more important advice from WAID for you and other new users: [57]
    “
    Source
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38085369/
    Type per WP:MEDPRI
    It's a secondary source (specifically, a systematic review).
    WP:MEDSCI
    Archives of Dermatological Research is a peer-reviewed medical journal published by Springer that ranks in the top 10% according to Scopus. There is No magic number for impact factors, but at 3.0, theirs is certainly respectable. It is also a relevant journal (dermatology) for the subject ("Evaluation of curcumin for dermatologic conditions").
    WP:MEDASSESS
    It's a systematic review, and MEDASSESS says "editors should rely on high-level evidence, such as systematic reviews".
    WP:MEDDATE
    It was published a couple of months ago, well within the ideal of 5 years.
    WP:MEDINVITRO
    It does not rely on pre-clinical/non-human research.
    WP:MEDINDY
    No reason to believe the study authors are hoping to become millionaires or otherwise have a conflict of interest.
    WP:MEDBIAS
    No reason to be concerned about a systematic review being biased.
    Overall conclusion
    This first source meets the MEDRS ideal.
    The next step here is note that "meeting the MEDRS ideal" does not mean you can write anything you want. It may be the ideal type of source, but that does not mean that it is reliable for any statement at all. An appropriate statement for this source might sound somewhat closer to the "promising candidate for further research" end of the spectrum than the "will solve all the world's problems" end. This is because ... although it is possible to write an extremely high-quality review from low-quality studies – Cochrane does that all the time – you cannot get definitive conclusions from (exclusively) low-quality data..
    And more:
    Be careful not to overstate them, but just state them directly, simply, and concisely.
    (See also WP:MEDLANG on why we avoid the term allopathic as much as possible.)
    ... I suspect that a better path forward here is to make one small change, with a gold-plated source from a stellar journal. Start with Arch Derm Res, that Nature journal and Nutrition Reviews; if you can get two sentences into one article without getting reverted, then come back in a week or two (or five) and maybe expand it by using the Cytokine, Journal of Functional Foods, and/or Phytotherapy Research sources.
    .. MEDRS does not give editors an excuse to reject a source entirely because the Wikipedia editor has decided that the sample size is too small (even though real-world peer review accepted it). However, Wikipedia editors do have to think about the text that the source can support. Even a top-quality, gold-plated MEDRS ideal source is not useful for writing "Wonderpam is scientifically proven to cure all ills". A source based on limited information might only be useful for a statement like "Wonderpam has been researched" or "Wonderpam is sometimes used as a treatment for scaryitis" (or other suitably weak statements)..
    ”
    That said, given the heated discussion, I’m not sure if you should continue editing the Curcuminoid article or perhaps you would like to try something else. Anyway, the principles are the same.
    As a side, I don’t think posting 10+ sources at a time for others to review is a good idea. It makes everyone’s life difficult ;-) Slower is better perhaps. But like others, I appreciate your enthusiasm. I believe you will be a good editor and I look forward to see what you are going to accomplish. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    BTW, I agree with others that only biomedical information needs MEDRS compliant sources. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research in relation to humanities based topics?

Hi everyone, would articles produced by this journal be considered a reliable source? I’ve come across a few of them, the authors are legitimate academics but mainly at small institutions throughout Asia. Something about the website and the spelling mistakes makes it seem off in my opinion though: https://www.ijfmr.com/

Would appreciate the input of others on this. Ixudi (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ixudi: Clearly a predatory journal to me. The signs you already mentioned are clear indicators as well as the fees to publish, no mention of a reputable publisher, scrolling banners, and non-academic language. The open call to become a reviewer is the nail in the coffin. See WP:VANPRED, Predatory publishing#Characteristics, and Beall's criteria for more on how to recognize predatory journals. — MarkH21talk 10:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I've run into this journal before. I agree it's a predatory journal. Used in Cultural change of artificial intelligence. We use it in Kashmiri cuisine quite a bit. We also use the "International Journal of Culture and History. 1 (2) – via Macrothink Institute." For that, see Template:Predatory open access source list which includes Macrothink. In Modern monetary theory we have "Yasuhito Tanaka (2 August 2021). "An elementary mathematical model for MMT (Modern Monetary Theory)". Research in Applied Economics (Macrothink Institute).". Doug Weller talk 10:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with what's been said above, this is not a reliable journal. Here's some good analysis about it: [58]. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Tahawolat

Is this Arabic source reliable? It claims to be a journal, How can we know whether it is reliable or not? A user claimed it is "a credible magazine with plenty of monthly issues for many years" providing this https://web.archive.org/web/20210925115625/https://www.tahawolat.net/Magazine.aspx?PageNumber=2&Magazine=1 ( I do not know if that is actually true ). Their website makes me believe they are neither reliable nor notable, a reliable Arabic journal looks like this An-Nahar

Whatsupkarren (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You need to give the context of the claim it is making and the article, or you aren't going to get many answers. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
A user added to the article Wadi al-Nasara that a large part of Wadi al-Nasara's population comes originally from Lebanon, (for obvious nationalistic reasons) this claim is entirely based on this article https://web.archive.org/web/20180319084712/http://www.tahawolat.net/MagazineArticleDetails.aspx?Id=567 Whatsupkarren (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, so you obviously have doubts about this source, what is their basis? Also, with regards to the suggestion part of the population came from Lebanon in the 19th century, is there any reason to doubt this? It wouldn't seem an unusual claim in itself.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
the reason I doubt this is because, 1) as I see it, this journal isn't notable and seems to be very random, 2) there doesn't seem to be any other source that says Wadi Nasara's population came from that place. The author of the article isn't a known historian either and did not say from where he had brought his information. Whatsupkarren (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, and you are very familiar with the Lebanese press and have never heard of this magazine? And are you very familiar with the place itself? For example, have you spoken to people from there about this topic and they have not mentioned this? Have you read similarly in depth texts on the area which do not mention this? Sorry for the many questions, I am trying to establish whether this would be an extraordinary claim.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes I've never heard of this magazine before and can confirm it is not a notable magazine, and yeah it doesn't have a Wikipedia article in Arabic let alone in English unlike other notable Arabic magazines such as Al-Ahram and Al majala. and I know this is not the only way to decide whether a magazine is reliable or not but really I don't think just because it is a mag that prints stuff maybe on a monthly basis it becomes useable as a source. I mean who is the founder of this magazine? Who's behind it?
And no I've never asked someone from the wadi if his ancestors came from Lebanon that'd be a bit awkward. I have searched in Arabic sources about that and couldn't find anything apart from books mentioning some families that came from the Hauran region of southern Syria. Whatsupkarren (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the answers. So I think you probably need to speak to somebody Lebanese to gauge reliability in this case, try the Lebanon wikiproject? I have taken the liberty of tagging @Nehme1499: as I know they put in a lot of work on the Levantine Arabic article and maybe have better criteria than me to evaluate the reliability of the source.
Could you perhaps include the exact quote (translated into English) that sources the link to Lebanon? Is it mentioned several times, or is it a throwaway remark? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your time, but I don't see how speaking with Lebanese users can solve the problem here, we need reliable sources to support a claim, otherwise, we're engaging in original research, I believe it is on the user who's using that source to prove why the source he/she is using is reliable, I have opened a talk page on the relevant article. Hopefully User Chris O'hare will engage in it cuz they said they wouldn't.
And yes the article says: The history of families in the wadi Al nasara overwhelmingly dates back to Christian villages in Lebanon in general, and specifically the northern ones. Their displacement journeys began in 1856 during the first Lebanese sectarian war. Whatsupkarren (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
If your problem is not knowing whether a Lebanese source is reliable, then talking to a Lebanese user is the only possible solution to that problem.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
“A good idea”, sure; “the only possible solution” certainly not! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the reliability of academically-published material by Dr. Mensur Omerbashich?

What is the reliability of academically-published material by Dr. Mensur Omerbashich?

Previous discussions: 1, 2.

Dr. Mensur Omerbashich is currently cited on List of earthquakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 1927 Ljubinje earthquake. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Survey

  • Discussion opened as a result of a now-blocked editor dispute. However, further discussion and searching led to finding a previous (even larger) non-RfC discussion as well as being cited on two articles. Since this involves determining whether peer-reviewed material from a scientist is a reliable source & having previous discussions on him, an RfC to make the reliability determination is needed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4, I suppose, though I doubt this really comes up enough to be worth an RFC or a RSP entry. The discussion on Talk:Sun was about an article in the Journal of Geophysics]. Let me paste in my comment from that discussion here: Looking into the Journal, it appears that what happened here is the journal went defunct in 1988. Then Omerbashich set up a website in 2020 using the old Journal's name (and laying claim to its old impact factor and etc.). He's been using it as a self publishing venue. Each 'issue', (there have been 3) has his own work in it. This isn't a reliable source and I find claims of proper peer-review highly unlikely. Participants should also have a look at Omerbashich's blog. But here's a representative quote: this discovery instantly invalidates/makes impossible any (general) relativity theory (including Einstein's) as well as any alternatives such as MOND, which jews came up with "just in case" - to keep us/goyim dumbed down so they can easier get away with being the supreme race of our masters:) - MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4, in addition to the above I am unable to find any evidence supporting Dr. Omerbashich's claim to be the current "Lead geodesist" of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a position he claims (alongside "Head of the Bosnian royal family") on his LinkedIn. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
    Here is another website run by Dr. Omerbashich that succinctly demonstrates his relationship with the field of science in general. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Neither, this seems malformed. Citations aren't fundamentally about the author, they're about the editorial control of the publication venue. I would choose option 4 for 'Journal of Geophysics', to which WP:SELFPUB arguably applies as he his the editor-in-chief and I understand that at least one of his articles appears in all three published issues. However, I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater, I do not see any evidence presented to argue that Omerbashich, Mensur; Sijarić, Galiba (28 November 2006). "Seismotectonics of Bosnia - Overview". Acta Geodyn. Geomater. 3 (2): 17–29. to be unreliable. Has any such argument been made? --Noren (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4, even if something he published is correct, it looks really fringy. And here is an interesting rationalwiki article on him, just for some context. And one quote from his blog: How fascist monopoly Google character-assassinates Dr. Omerbashich to protect its masters' theft of his multi-billion intellectual property. Artem.G (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Given the above concerns about self-publication, if he has been published in a journal not published or edited by himself he might be OK. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4, obviously. Omerbashich's blog clearly demonstrates that he is a common antisemitic crank dressing wild pseudoscience in a hollow costume of academic language. It's a sadly frequent occurence and I hope this RFC is for posterity's sake more than any kind of real debate about reliability. Penitentes (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4, seems to be nothing more than self-published pseudoscience and/or conspiracy theories. Clear WP:FRINGE source. The Kip 18:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. This isn't really a question of reliable sources. We don't let editors add new theories to scientific articles sourced only the publications by the creator of the theory. They may be full professors and the theories may be published in perfectly acceptable journals, but that is not enough. We require evidence that the material has been accepted by the wider scientific community as shown by review articles or other material published by people independent of the originator. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
    Mostly correct… there are situations where it is appropriate to briefly mention an established expert’s new and unreviewed theory (one example would be in that expert’s bio article) … but when/if we do mention this sort of thing, we would have to present it as being such. Blueboar (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Pseudoscience. We don't cite that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per above. JM (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4. I did some digging on this guy and, holy shit, there's a lot going on. He seems to have usurped the name of a formerly reputable journal which stopped publishing in the 80s, put some random (real) people on its website, presumably without their knowledge, and used it to peddle his anti-Semitic conspiracies and other assorted bullshit. Although the referenced paper seems indeed to be published in a reputable journal (Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia), because of his egregious current work, Wikipedia ought to keep a very, very large distance from him. See also the relevant page on RationalWiki. — Jumbo T (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Dr. Mensur Omerbashich)

Why is this written with the subject being a person rather than a particular publication? This does not follow the pattern of other discussions. It may be too late now, but I think this would have been better written with 'Journal of Geophysics' as the subject. Is there an argument to be made against https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611279.pdf, a source currently cited by List of earthquakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 1927 Ljubinje earthquake which this RFC as written would depreciate? --Noren (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Minor clarification: Omerbashich's paper is listed as Further reading in both of those articles, not cited. Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. I would also clarify minorly that it should be referred to also as the co-author Sijarić's paper. This raises the question: if we start to depreciate sources by author(s) rather than by publication venue, how would we handle publications with more than one author? There are many scientific papers with dozens of authors. --Noren (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Why do we need an RFC for this? nableezy - 18:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes and no. RFCBefore was satisfied, so an RfC was more or less actually needed, given the debate that actually partially ended right before this was started. That said, in a couple of days, if consensus is clear for an option, the RfC tag could be removed and speedy closed. So yes, since there have been dozens of editors involved in discussions related to his publications. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
If its about a single source on a couple of pages just have a normal discussion on is this a reliable source for this material? This page isnt supposed to be a thousand RFCs to deprecate, thats only for something that is a widespread and persistent issue. nableezy - 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
This is not a "single source". This is more, from what I gather, that a clueless scientist has published a handful of actual scientific and peer-reviewed papers. Imagine if say Alex Jones published a peer-reviewed article in say American Historical Review, four in Monthly Weather Review, and ten in The New England Journal of Medicine. Do you talk about the author or the actual academic sources? Would you trust a peer-reviewed academic paper by him? This spans at least four Wikipedia articles, each with different sources. So, no, this discussion is valid as it is about a scientist, not a "single source". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Which papers do you object to that were not published in 'Journal of Geophysics'? --Noren (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
For something written by anyone to be published in any of those well-established and well-respected journals, the article has to survive a blind peer review process with at least anonymous reviewers plus the review from the editor-in-chief and possibly editorial board as well (I say this based on my knowledge of how history journals like the American Historical Review work). I see no reason for thinking any of those three periodicals would publish something along the lines of content in Alex Jones's Infowars, which would likely fail the initial editorial review, much less the anonymous peer review. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I can't speak to how it works in geophysics or history, but in my experience in the biosciences the peer-review process primarily ensures that the experimental design & methods are appropriate to answer the questions being asked (and that the results at least appear to be plausible). Reviewers don't actually check if the results are valid/repeatable, and so the process assumes that scientists are acting in good faith and fails in the case of bad actors.
Dr. Omerbashich's willingness to misrepresent himself (as the "Lead Geodesist" at Berkeley), his co-opting of an existing journal into his own vanity press, and his beef with the peer-review process in general are concerning. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The David Pakman Show

Any views on the reliability of this as a source? (Specifically, reporting a David and Goliath lawsuit in another country.) ——Serial 14:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

None at all, any reliability is individual. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Horse Eye  :) Iol I have no idea what that really means... as in, depending on what the show's about at any particular time? ——Serial Number 54129 14:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Because talk shows are in general unscripted (or at least presented as such) there isn't the sort of editorial control over what is being said that would let us attribute something to the program per say... But you can attribute a statement (when due) to a presenter or guest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense, many thanks! ——Serial Number 54129 14:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
He’s a political commentator who voices his opinions, so I don’t think he has any real validity as a solid source. His views are his own and are hardly authoritative.
Friedbyrd (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
That's useful, thanks! Sounds like a no-no, then. ——Serial Number 54129 17:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Peter of Savoy: The Little Charlemagne

  • Marshall, John (2023). Peter of Savoy: The Little Charlemagne. Pen and Sword

I am aware of some previous discussion(s) regarding Pen and Sword publishing and wasn't sure if it covered all their books.

The author John Marshall, "Following a History Masters at Northumbria University and subsequent move to Switzerland, John Marshall specialised in the Thirteenth County of Savoy and its extraordinary relationship with the Kingdom of England. He founded an association in Switzerland to develop Anglo-Swiss relations in this regard. His first work Welsh Castle Builders: The Savoyard Story explored the remarkable career of Maître Jacques de Saint Georges and his fellow artisans from Savoy in building the great castles of north Wales. This second book Peter of Savoy: The Little Charlemagne is in many respects a prequel and first English language study of the key figure who made all of what later followed possible."

Thoughts?--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I am cautiously optimistic. Pen and Sword is known as a publisher of military history. On this noticeboard, it's variously been called fine in some cases and questionable in others. Marshall having some graduate-level training in the field of history is encouraging, and an Amazon preview indicates the book even has endnotes. A more definitive answer would require a closer review of the book than I am able to provide. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Inmate locator

I see a number of articles use https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ as a reference for persons incarcerated in US federal prisons. It's mostly used for identifying in which prison a person is incarcerated and their release date (both future and past dates). It's obviously a primary source; how reliable is it? 76.14.122.5 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's a primary source in the context of articles about incarcerated people, as it is not published by the people themselves. See the example about "An article about a person" in WP:PRIMARYCARE. Also, please keep in mind that primary sources are not always bad (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), and I would even go so far as to say that that government registry you mentioned has the ultimate authority in these cases. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
It looks reliable in the sense that it looks authoritative for the specific facts it provides. It's definitely a primary source, so a concern would be how to establish the due weight of a prisoner's location. I looked at a couple of existing citations and note some other issues:
  • XXXTentacion#cite_note-52 just cites the top-level URL without any prisoner ID, so we cannot verify.
  • Joaquín_"El_Chapo"_Guzmán#cite_ref-4 does give the BOP Register Number, but doesn't say where we got this number from, so are we sure it's the right person? In this case, probably yes, but perhaps caution would be warranted for less distinctive names. Regarding this particular person, I note that the name on the BOP website is slightly different to the name in our article, so the BOP website is possibly not reliable for determining exact names (or maybe it is and other sources have got it wrong).
Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. It seems that the prudent path is to use the site with caution. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that in the vast majority of potential uses of it, we should be silent, per WP:DUE. --JBL (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
My sense is to agree it is a primary source. Although it's not authored by the person, the U. S. federal Bureau of Prisons is certainly a closely involved participant in the incarceration of persons in U. S. federal prisons. While this information is likely accurate and authoritative, I think JBL is right to point out that this doesn't necessarily account for whether due weight would have Wikipedia include such information. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This is definitely a public record, and so WP:BLPPRIMARY Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post

I was wondering about the reliability of JPost? They ran an article yesterday claiming Hamas is creating a "false narrative that Gazans are starving and dying as a result" despite every major humanitarian organization in the world stating there is a catastrophic level hunger levels in Gaza right now. Perhaps even more disturbing, the article includes the quote "Sinwar is ensuring that food does not reach the Gazans" yet when you click on the hyperlink, it directs you to an article about Israelis blocking humanitarian aid for Gaza! This is blatant journalistic malpractice and wanted to ask about its broader reliability since JPost is currently cited in around 10,000 articles. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The source that refers to all Palestinians arrested by Israel as terrorists. It might well be time to have a closer look at this one. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
No it should not be an RS for this conflict, really. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Not familiar enough with JP to have an opinion in general, but I note this article is tagged "analysis", an ambiguous term that sometimes connotes "opinion" and sometimes more in-depth expert analysis, depending on the publication. In this case, it's clearly the former. The author is a social psychologist who works on branding and has no expertise in this topic. So as a minimum, we should note that "analysis" by JP contributors should be treated as opinion not used as a source for facts. To stop using their actual news content, I'd want to see more evidence of unreliability first. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Agreed… analysis equates to opinion, and both reliability and Due Weight depends on who the specific analyst is. Analysis should always be attributed in text, and never used for non-attributed claims of fact. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Analysis does not equate to opinion; consider Statistical analysis. But I agree that this particular source should be treated as an opinion piece. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
JPost is generally considered mostly centrist or center-right, and while they are somewhat affected by bias, there are definitely worse major publications when it comes to the I/P conflict. It has a significant national and international readership.
Regarding reliability, it generally meets the standards set forth for most sourced, and is considered „mostly factual“ by MBFC, and „mixed“ by ground news (citing MBFC and Ad Fontes). They are broadly cited by Wikipedia and also by many in the MSM; therefore, they are (generally) reliable. That being said, rules regarding the citation of opinions obviously need to be considered. FortunateSons (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I don’t entirely disagree with your conclusions, but worth noting Ad Fontes and MBFC are considered generally unreliable at WP:RSP. The Kip 21:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
True, thank you very much for giving me the opinion to clarify what I (poorly) attempted to imply: while both have significant issues, they do generally provide decent context about how a source is perceived, which has some value here (as generally discussed in the RfCs). FortunateSons (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I’d personally shy away from using JPost for reporting on the conflict, but considering the “Analysis” tag, wouldn’t this just be considered under WP:RSOPINION? The Kip 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Given its obviously false reporting on this current conflict I think they should be considered as generally unreliable. TarnishedPathtalk 14:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is a pretty obvious opinion piece, and one that is not notable, so it's not an issue for us. I would be worried about using the JP for facts (rather than viewpoints) on Gaza which are contradicted or not mentioned by reliable sources outside of Israel, but it is generally going to be reliable on reporting the views of the Israeli establishment. It doesn't make stuff up but it is a very biased source in the current climate, so a lot of care should be taken. --Boynamedsue (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The article has nothing indicating it is an opinion piece except it is so repellant. However I see the analysis word. There's bits in the main article about Israel- Gaza where analysis is being promoted over what Hamas itself said was its reasons on the basis that external analysis was more reliable. I'll take this as opinion though. I would not write off JPost because of it any more than I would the New York Times above. We need news about the war and so many other sources are just unusably bad. NadVolum (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The New York Times is technically below, just for the benefit of readers :)
Otherwise agree on the outcome. FortunateSons (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Covering this topic on Wikipedia certainly depends on news coverage, but we also need that coverage to be reliable, verifiable, and independent. There is no deadline, and if accuracy means waiting a bit, that may be the more prudent course. The Wikipedia project is an encyclopedia, not a news wire and doesn't necessarily "need" to be summarizing all up-to-the-hour coverage. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

koreaboo.com

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

Opening this on behalf of Airsolly. The specific article can be found here for use on NCT U, regarding controversies. You can see the edit using it here, now reverted as a potential BLP violation.

It's worth noting I'm unfamiliar with what's considered a reliable source when it comes to K-pop. However, I did not see any evidence of editorial oversight, authorship, or any indicators I'd usually use to determine if a source is reliable. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 07:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Emily Willis overdose sources

An editor has complained that I added reference to reports that actress Emily Willis had been hospitalized for an overdose earlier this month.

The sources I have included are:

  • "Porn Star Emily Willis Hospitalized After Apparent OD, Critical Condition". TMZ. February 5, 2024. (a yellow-light source)
  • Gomez, Jade (February 5, 2024). "Adult Film Star Emily Willis Hospitalized Following Overdose". Complex. (I am unaware of any discussion of the reliability of this source; it is cited in several hundred articles)
  • "Porn star Emily Willis in a 'critical condition' after overdose". www.indy100.com. February 5, 2024. (a website of The Independent)

The subject is not likely to be reported on at all in higher-level sources. I am aware that the non-TMZ sources are basically reporting that TMZ has reported this, but I doubt that they would be without reasonable reliability on the reporting being relayed. BD2412 T 00:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 There is no reason to assume that either Complex or Indy100 have done any verification of TMZ's reporting. The fact that they explicitly say that the information comes from TMZ suggests that they are not willing to take responsibility in case this turns out not to be true.
In any case, we require high quality sources to report something of this nature. We obviously don't have that in this case. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Whether the cited sources are of sufficient quality is what this discussion is intended to decide. BD2412 T 00:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@BD2412 TMZ is not a high quality source. That's not even up for debate. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
It's being debated right now. BD2412 T 00:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that this was the reliable sources noticeboard, not the biographies of living people noticeboard (where I think we should be having this discussion). Since TMZ already has its own WP:TMZ shortcut, I suspect that there's little to be gained by discussing it again, but obviously I will abide by whatever consensus is reached here. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@BD2412 As I stated on your talk page, I would have no concerns about removing this on BLP grounds if the page weren't fully protected. This is the reason the page is fully protected - because users keep adding the TMZ report. Can you please remove the entire section about the overdose until the issue is settled? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
On closer inspection, the Indy100.com report is not entirely reliant on the TMZ report. It relays details from the TMZ report, but not the fundamental claim that "Emily Willis is in a critical condition after suffering an alleged overdose". BD2412 T 00:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
For that claim, it says "according to reports" in the first sentence. Which reports aren't specified there, and it looks likely that it's the TMZ source entered later. In any case "according to reports" means they are not putting it in their own voice. (And "alleged" makes not at all clear who is doing the alleging.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Has there ever been a requirement that a reliable source be "putting it in their own voice"? We cite to sources reporting on background all the time. They are reporting it. If there is a controversy, we can cure any ambiguity by directly quoting the source, or using the same qualifying language. BD2412 T 03:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
We're using reliable sources for what they say. If they're saying X happened, that's different than saying Y said X happened. And in this case, we don't know whether they are talking about TMZ or some other report. A report from TMZ, or from an unknown source, saying that someone but we don't know who is alleging an overdose, that's a couple steps away from actually knowing she had an overdose, and seems very much like the sort of thing we'd want to avoid in a BLP. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
This whole thing seems extremely tabloid-y and lurid, I'm not sure "alleged overdose" is even remotely DUE for the article at this time, or maybe ever, unless it sees better reporting. Parabolist (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
What in the article would be considered DUE based on the level of sources generally in use? The rest of the article is sourced primarily to IAFD, IMDb, Adult DVD Talk, AVN, Penthouse, Twitter, XBIZ, and YouTube, rounded out by Deadline, and My News LA. BD2412 T 01:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you explain how the existing sourcing relates to the due weight consideration of including or not including something like an alleged drug overdose? Those seem to be unrelated concerns. Are you saying that if an article has generally weak sourcing that it is ok to include something in a BLP that is sourced to TMZ? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This is BLP, and what is DUE for one of those is extremely rigorous, and the other sources in the article have no bearing on this. We have the exact same respect for every BLP on here. The implication here is that because this is an adult actress, and the sourcing reflects that, so we're allowed to be more tabloid, and that's fairly ridiculous.Parabolist (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
If this is not DUE, then why are more sources reporting on this than reported on literally any other aspect of this subject's life? By that measure, it appears to be the most notable thing that has ever happened to them. BD2412 T 23:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
@BD2412 I think this discussion should have been started in the BLP noticeboard in the first place, but if it needs to continue it should probably continue there since we don't seem to be talking about sourcing here. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Parabolist: Given that it is now being reported that the article subject remains in a coma for more than a month after her initial admission to the hospital, would you agree that this is an important enough event in the subject's life to be considered DUE? BD2412 T 04:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree. This overdose stuff seems like it would fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Some1 (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Not that this answers your main question, but you mentioned Complex being evaluated as a source, just to point out, it’s rated green on User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter, though I’m not sure which original source list that rating came from.
BhamBoi (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The scripts that highlight sources are maintained by independent editors. They are invaluable as something to highlight source use in an article or draft, but are not much use in discussions like this -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I have no real opinion on Complex – I don't think I've ever come across it before – but my understanding is that indy100 is a tabloidy clickbaity spinoff of The Independent – their main site is independent.co.uk. I agree with Counterfeit Purses here: the fact that the rest of the article is badly sourced does not mean that we should be sourcing a claim about a living person's drug use and/or medical history to TMZ. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)::
I think we do, however, generally note when notable figures are hospitalized for drug overdoses. AVN, which is already used as a source in the article, is now reporting that the subject's family has launched a crowdfunding campaign to cover her continuing medical expenses, which suggests a rather serious health event. BD2412 T 22:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
@BD2412, I use Complex as references, and I'd say it's WP:GREL for internet-related matters (which Wills is). The Gray Lady once noted that AVN (magazine) is like a paper of record for porn-related matters. Putting these two together, I personally think it's worth adding a bit about this information. TLAtlak 04:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@I'm tla Emily Willis is not an "internet-related matter". They are a living person. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
They are an internet porn actress... TLAtlak 04:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
An "internet porn actress" is a living person. Which means that WP:BLP applies. High quality sources are required for biographies of living people. High quality sources are required for inclusion of something like a drug overdose. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I recognize that, which is why I'm disregarding TMZ and other tabloid-style publications. AVN is the strongest source here, Complex is quite good as well. Obviously they aren't the best sources in the world, but they are certainly generally reliable. TLAtlak 05:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Complex is reporting n what TMZ said: "According to TMZ..." and "The outlet also reported...". Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
"Complex is reporting" should be the end of the inquiry, if Complex is an RS. We have never, to my knowledge, required an RS to exceed that standard, whether for a BLP or not. If there is a rule requiring that reporting by one source not refer to another, I'd like to see it. BD2412 T 16:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
We have a reasonably respected essay on this, Wikipedia:Fruit of the poisonous tree. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
TMZ, however, has not been designated an unreliable source. A reliable source citing a not-unreliable source is not exactly contemplated by that essay. Of course, the underlying claim has since also been reported by AVN. BD2412 T 17:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I should note that the term "overdose" generally occurs either in the realm of illegal or illegally obtained drugs, or the use of a prescribed drug in a manner beyond what is prescribed... which, according to at least some sources I find, is also illegal. So inclusion of "overdose" is a WP:BLPCRIME matter. Inclusion of the hospital stay, which now has better sourcing, is not. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@NatGertler: That is incorrect. No such thing is asserted as necessary in our own article on drug overdose, and it is possible to overdose on aspirin, and certainly on legally obtained prescription medications. There is no legal implication whatsoever. If there was, we would use whatever non-criminal terminology referred to a reaction to excessive intake of a substance, but here we do not need to use any different term. BD2412 T 17:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree that including discussion of overdose is not a BLP crime issue, but overdoses are a highly charged topic with definite negative connotations and we should still be very careful about whether to include such claims. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@BD2412 Please consider resigning your admin rights. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Counterfeit Purses: If you have a concern with how I have exercised administrative rights, please take that up at WP:ANI. BD2412 T 17:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
AVN, which is already used as a source in the article, is now reporting that the subject's family has launched a crowdfunding campaign to cover her continuing medical expenses, which suggests a rather serious health event. If AVN is an RS for this sort of thing, we could use it to support that Willis has been hospitalised, but it makes no mention of drugs or overdoses, and so we cannot use it for that. If the only possibly good source for the drug overdose is explicitly reporting it as "according to TMZ" rather than in their own voice, I would be pretty uncomfortable about our including such a claim in the article; if it's really DUE then surely other reliable sources will pick up on it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto-public While TMZ does tabloid-y type of stuff often ("sources state", "someone close to them said", the ghoulish behavior around providing 911 calls for the public when a celebrity dies or is found dead, etc), if the subjects family gives an exclusive update to said source and is quoted or interviewed by the source, would it not then be reliable for reporting what they say, in your opinion? At least it could be reliable, depending on the reasoning at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

I understand the BLP implications with regards to BLPPRIVACY/BLPGOSSIP, but if the family releases a statement to a single source (in this case TMZ with the link @BeFriendlyGoodSir posted below), I would think it would qualify as respecting the privacy and avoiding gossip to release the information the family is willing to share ('suffered a cardiac arrest while in a rehabilitation facility. Initial reports indicated no illegal substances in her system, according to her family') without directly mentioning the overdose itself.

I think we can avoid stating specifically about an overdose in this instance, since the statement from her family mentions she was under weight at the time of entering, and does not seem to mention what she went in for rehab to treat. Anorexia can also cause cardiac arrest, and you can also enter a rehab facility for an eating disorder. I know the suggestions are more geared towards BLPN, but this whole conversation has somewhat veered into discussing BLP issues more so than the newly started BLPN discussion.
Awshort (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
That second TMZ article had not been written the last time I looked at this, but while I am uncomfortable with the sensationalist tone it uses I think we can certainly report it to corroborate the hospitalisation. Between that/the Toronto Sun/AVN I think we can certainly include something along the lines of In February 2024 Willis was hospitalised after being found unresponsive. Her family set up a crowdfunding campaign to help pay for her medical care.(Toronto Sun) In March, her father told TMZ that she was in a coma.(TMZ)
I note that the new TMZ article says that, at least according to her family, the toxicology report was negative suggesting that Willis had not overdosed. While this is still unclear I think we should avoid saying either way. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Is there an RS determination for the Toronto Sun? It appears unrelated to the deprecated The Sun (United Kingdom), and has now also published a story on this: Porn star's family seeks donations for medical bills after drug overdose". BD2412 T 21:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Not looking good for Emily Willis if this is true... new TMZ article titled "EMILY WILLIS IN A COMA AMID HOSPITALIZATION Fam Preparing for the Worst". March 7, 2024. says she hasn't regained consciousness since the event over a month ago. Apparently it was NOT an overdose but cardiac arrest. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
An overdose can cause cardiac arrest, but I suppose it is fair to report on the hospitalization without specifying the cause. BD2412 T 01:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
It seems from past discussions that most editors deem Toronto Sun reliable. It's also probably worthy to note that the company that publishes the Toronto Sun is behind some of the newspaper of records in Canada. TLAtlak 03:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I disagree on the Toronto Sun being reliable, being a sensationalist tabloid like the New York Post, and other editors have agreed on this[59] It doesn't matter if their owner has more reliable publications in its portfolio. News Corp owned both the Wall Street Journal and New York Post and Fox News at one time. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I see nothing in the linked discussion addressing whether the information reported by the Toronto Sun is likely to be accurate. Reliability of a source is based on the accuracy of its information, not the sensationalism of its choice of stories to cover. BD2412 T 22:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep in mind WP:BLPGOSSIP along with WP:ONUS. Did you ignore in the cited discussion, "The Toronto Sun certainly is one of the least reliable 'newspaper' in Canada" and "Tabloids are not real news, and this should not be news to you." These articles about the Toronto Sun do not help its reputation for fact-checking.[60][61] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
The linked articles are exactly what I would expect to see as evidence of unreliability in the reporting of the source, and in light of those I would agree that the Toronto Sun should not be used as a source here. BD2412 T 23:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Emily_Willis. Just because sources exist does not mean we should include any particular event of detail. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Pavle Ingorokva's book as a source for Georgian history

Pavle Ingorokva published a book in the 1950s which, among other things, argued that certain tribes mentioned in classical sources are Kartvelian (that is, related to modern Georgians) and that certain other peoples are not indigenous to Georgia/Abkhazia.

His work has been criticised by modern scholars. See for example Transcaucasian Boundaries by John Wright et al (2003), p. 198


Ingorokva's work has been characterised as historical revisionism and his claims as controversial. Tuite furthermore writes To put it bluntly, Ingoroq’va’s project ... consisted in the erasure of non-Georgians, or those whose Georgianness was perceived as problematic, from the historical record of Abkhazia and southwestern Georgia

There are many more recent and much better sources. As far as I know no modern sources published in the West espouse Ingorokva's point of view. Therefore I believe that Ingorokva should not be used for anything remotely controversial, except when discussing the Georgian historiography and its relationship to contemporary politics. This book has been added as a source to the articles about the Sanigs and Misimians. Alaexis¿question? 16:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Ingorokvas wasn't discredited due to his lack of knowledge or his reasoning by the Soviet Union but because of the anti-Georgian Kartvelophobic stance of Khruschev, who had openly insulted Georgian nation through his sarcastic comments as well as open insults and threats done by him towards Georgian nation and towards the territorial integrity of Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic.
Nikita Khrushchov openly threatened Georgians in the 1960s, that he would incite Abkhazians against them and deport every Georgian from Abkhazia if they wouldn't act wisely: “If the Georgians do not behave wisely, I will address the Abkhazians against them… Bring the carriages and resettle all the Georgians from Georgia…”[62] (p.51)
In 1961, Mikheil Suslov main ideologist of the Soviet Union made a secret report stating: “…Today or tomorrow Georgians will start struggling against communism. We must start fighting against the Georgians from Abkhazia. We should give the autonomous status to Samegrelo and Svaneti. In each of these regions, we should develop regional-nationalistic feelings. We should ensure everyone that Abkhazia is inhabited by Georgians (meaning colonized). Eastern Georgia will be confronted with Western Georgia. After this we should act as a mediator and conciliator…”[63](p.51)
Soviet Unions post-Stalin Anti-Georgian stance could have been seen by banning of books of Georgian authors, as one of them turned out to be Pavle Ingorokvas "Giorgi Merchule", simply because it didn't fit the narrative of Soviet Unions new anti-Georgian policy, which aimed at spread separatism in the regions of ethnic minorities such as Abkhazia. Therefore Soviet Union did everything to discredit Pavle Ingorokva.
Moreover, Pavle Ingorokvas conclusion of Misimians is very well argumented and accepted by many modern historians[64](p.9) Ingorokvas conclusion is based on the work of the various ancient historians/writers such as Strabo, Ptolemy and middle-ages Armenian writer Faustus of Byzantium.
For a complete deletion of a serious historian which was Pavle Ingorokva you need more than just a couple of quotes and a serious argument denouncing Ingorokvas ideas about Misimians and Sanigs themselves. Lemabeta (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The Soviet Union's stance towards Georgia is completely irrelevant to the critique of Ingorokva. Books from the 1950s are incredibly dated, and identification of ethnic groups in classical sources with modern ethnicities is by its nature highly speculative. I don't see why any weight should be given to Ingorokva's opinings on this topic.
Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
John Wright wrote that "Though Ingoroq’va was discredited when the anti-Abkhazian policy of 1933–53 was reversed" its the time of Soviet Union. As he mentions Ingorokva was discredited by the Soviet Union. by the order of Khruschev and his books were banned for the exact same reason as i have mentioned, therefore Soviet Unions stance towards Georgia is very relevant. Lemabeta (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

IndraStra Global

Recently, I cited a source from IndraStra Global (indrastra.com) in my latest article about INS Jatayu. Upon further investigation, I found that they also publish journal articles at ojs.indrastra.com. Should I trust these sources for Wikipedia, or should I seek out more reliable references? Charlie (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We do use it a lot, which makes it more important to decide. . See [65] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndraStra Global and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndraStra Global Open Repository At least two articles using it, The Kingdom at the Centre of the World and Tibet, Tibet (book) were created by a paid editor. But that could be a coincidence. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Appreciated. I will aim to substitute the source linked to this portal in my article. Moving forward, a caution is advised. Charlie (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason for this caution? I'm under the impression sources can be reliable without being notable. From what I gather of the journals they publish, they don't seem like the sort that I would consider predatory. At least my experience has been that the particularly predatory and unreliable journals are the implausibly capacious ones, with titles like "Journal for International Multidisciplinary Research", and articles about everything from astrophysics to children's literature. The IndaStra OJS journals are more sensibly focused—like CLAWS Journal (for the Center of Land Warfare Studies) and Connections for Sustainability Journal. Granted, it's possible for predatory or semi-predatory journals to be less obvious (see the way folks squint at MDPI's periodicals), but my searching so far doesn't turn up the IndaStra periodicals on lists of predatory journals. Being cautious is generally a virtue, of course. But these are my two cents. I think these journals look promising for use. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the Sustainability journal and its publisher, I find it odd that a general search turns up so few hits.[66] and [67]. The Centre for Land Warfare Studies may be better - but I looked at it and it was created by someone who only did 22 edits ever, and it is 171th (is 'th" right?) among all global think tanks and only 172 are listed. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Reason for caution; a suspicion arising from the participation of a paid editor, as revealed by Doug Weller. Also discovered, IndraStra Global publishes journals for Nirma University at journals.nirmauni.ac.in. Does it have any impact? Because my inquiry pertains to the portal publishing on its own domain as well as for different think tanks and universities. Therefore, how do we evaluate them as a credible source?.Charlie (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

LegendsofAmerica.com

Used at a number of articles.[68] Some of those are different websites, not sure why they were picked up. See. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Lakota mythology needs eyes “ From their "About" info on the blog: "Hi Y'all, Legends of America is comprised of just the two of us — Dave & Kathy, .... With an entrepreneurial dream, we launched Legends of America in 2003." Doug Weller talk 19:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

In looking into this source, I definitely do not think it is reliable. While there is some content written by "Dave & Kathy", the sheer amount of commercial stuff they sell seems to be what the site is primarily about...selling fake Native American trinkets: [69], [70], [71], [72]. [73]; Old West memorabilia: [74], [75], [76]; and Americana stuff: [77], [78]. I don't think it should be used as a source for U.S history, or anything to do with the Indigenous peoples of the United States. Probably should not be used as a source for anything on the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Concur with Netherzone, this looks like a poor quality, essentially self published source. References to this source should be replaced if better ones can be found. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Concur with above; not seeing anything to indicate editorial oversight or, in the absence of that, expert status. The Kip 21:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Netherzone PersusjCP (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Is "Gota's War" by C.A. Chandraprema a reliable source on Sri Lankan ethnic conflict?

The biography in question is titled "Gota's War: The Crushing of Tamil Tiger Terrorism in Sri Lanka". It's about the controversial Sri Lankan defence secretary-turned-president Gotabaya Rajapaksa authored by another Sri Lankan government official close to him, C.A. Chandraprema who has been accused of involvement in a death squad and was appointed to a senior role in the Gotabaya government. The book has been described by the Human Rights Watch as glorifying president Gotabaya and whitewashing his war crimes during the ethnic conflict. It has thus also been described as a "hagiography". A user wants to cite the book in a controversial article "1977 anti-Tamil pogrom" as if it were just another secondary academic source. Is it a reliable source when it comes to objectively documenting the history of the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict?

Sources:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/03/sri-lankas-un-efforts-stave-justice-war-crimes

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/proposed-sri-lankan-envoy-to-geneva-c-a-chandraprema-was-a-member-of-prra-death-squad/

--- Petextrodon (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering the HRW article, I'd think no for anything but the attributed opinion(s)/view(s) of Chandraprema and/or Rajapaksa; if it's glorifying a leader involved in anti-Tamil persecution, I don't think it'd be reliable for factually describing an anti-Tamil massacre. I'd like to see what exactly it's being used for, however. The Kip 10:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll add that this listing seems to indicate the book was self-published, another point against regarding it as a reliable source. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The book in question was published by the Ranjan Wijerathna Foundation and not selfpublished [79], it has been cited in the 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom on these [80] instances, partly as a collaborative citation on certain general incidents and some spesific citation for incidents assocated to the 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom. @User:The Kip I would kindly request you to review these. Petextrodon had removed much of the content I added to the 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom to give context to the lead up to the rioting by claiming that "disruptive edits ruining the flow of the article with unnecessary details", this content was cleared by DRN Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom and readded today. The cited content are not associcated with Chandraprema or the subject of the book, these are narrations of historical events. Chandraprema have been accused of hunman right violations, however his appointment to the UN had been accepted by the UN [81] in 2020, and he had served in that role until his tenur ended. Cossde (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Intrestingly, Petextrodon has been using sources confirmed as ProRebel to create an extensive list of alleaged attacks on civilians by the Sri Lankan Government. Cossde (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
It may interest other users at this noticeboard to know that Cossde has been reported at ANI (permanent link) with the report stating that Cossde has disruptively removed sources from articles and accused, without clear evidence, other editors of inventing sources/content. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I may want to bring to the attention here that I have raised a WP:BLPN, before this RSN. Cossde (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Chandraprema is, at the very least, an involved party in this conflict, and his writing cannot be considered intellectually independent from the Sri Lankan government he was appointed by. Given the publisher and the HRW article I'm inclined to think he isn't a reliable source for anything but his own opinion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
    On reviewing the available information, I'm in agreement. This is not a reliable independent source for the topic of the 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom . P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
    Ok, based on this discussion I have removed this source and its content from the page. In order to avoid similar situations, can you @P-Makoto and @Vanamonde93, please elaborate the reason why Chandraprema is not a reliable independent source for the topic of the 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom. Cossde (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
    The content sourced to Chandraprema is still on the page, you have re-added it. Oz346 (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry, not sure what happened there. Its gone now. Cossde (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see how I can make it plainer than what I said above; a source with a close connection to the subject matter isn't considered an independent source, and is therefore not reliable for anything besides its own opinion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
    Ok, meaning that no content can be attributed to such a source? Cossde (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Insidehook.com

I see it is used 212 times but there isn't even an article on this publication. Is this a reliable magazine or more of a blog? Graywalls (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  • After a bit of scrolling/reading, I don't see anything that would indicate unreliability; it seems to be a fairly run-of-the-mill culture magazine. The Kip 02:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
It seems fine to me as well, nothing suspicious. Notability is not required for reliability (see WP:NRS), but there are some secondary sources describing this particular site: [82], [83], [84]. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Wow, WP:NRS is a... really weird essay with a really strange perspective. It is technically true that WP:RS and the WP:GNG are separate and unrelated, but the core definition of WP:RS is that a source must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; realistically, it is not possible to demonstrate that for a source that wouldn't have enough coverage to pass the GNG, so as a practical matter I would say that a RS must always be notable and that failure to reach that threshold is a massive red flag that requires extremely detailed explanations for how its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy can be demonstrated. I definitely would not link NRS under any circumstances; it's misleading to the point of just being useless. --Aquillion (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
You are probably right, but in that case WP:NRS should be changed to reflect this, because as you said, it's misleading in its current state.
I should have been more clear in my answer, but my main point is that it definitely does not seem unreliable and "there isn't even an article on this publication" also doesn't seem to be true based on the sources I referenced. In general, it's hard to judge its usage without WP:RSCONTEXT, but another factor that moves this magazine toward reliability, as opposed to unreliability, is that at least some of its editors have also contributed to WP:RS publications as well ([85], [86], [87]). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Well, what coverage does it have? The core definition of WP:RS is that a source must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; if it has no reputation, regardless of how well-presented it is, then it isn't an RS. A quick search indicates that it has at least been mentioned in some academic papers, so it might be worth starting there (and examining the context to see if it is valid WP:USEBYOTHERS and, if so, in what context.) Also, I want to take serious objection to both the responses above, which seem to take the perspective that things default to reliability - this is absolutely not the case. The core requirement for a RS is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; no reputation, no reliability. We can't declare a source reliable just because we like how it looks - this is sometimes used as a very quick shorthand for when a reputation can be assumed, but for obscure sources the first step should be to assess its reputation before anything else. --Aquillion (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Coverage for WP:GNG is not vital for a reliable source. If it prints corrections, has well qualified staff, is used by multiple reliable sources, and there is no evidence of unreliable reporting that counts for a lot. There are many reliable sources that don't have wikipedia articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
But the WP:USEBYOTHERS bit there is load-bearing, because it demonstrates a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If a source with no coverage in secondary sources and no WP:USEBYOTHERS simply asserted that it prints corrections and has well qualified staff, that alone wouldn't be enough to make it a WP:RS; after all, anyone can set up a web page and claim to be reliable, and qualified staff alone is not sufficient (at best it gets you to WP:EXPERTSPS, which comes with many restrictions not present for a true RS.) The reputation, as demonstrated by (for example) that usage by others, is the crux of what makes something an WP:RS. This is why I feel that saying that they don't need to satisfy the WP:GNG is misleading. Yes, of course they don't literally need to satisfy the GNG (which was written for a different purpose), but they do need secondary coverage in some form in order to establish their reputation - WP:USEBYOTHERS is one form, but a source that no external sources acknowledge exists at all would never be reliable. And in the overwhelming majority of cases, that secondary coverage or use by others would satisfy the GNG if we wanted to write an article about them anyway - after all, what are you envisioning in terms of being used by multiple reliable sources that would fail the GNG? That's why when people start to dismiss the idea of notability for a source it sets off alarm bells in my head - "the GNG isn't quite the right thing to use to assess a source's reputation for RS purposes" is true, but "notability doesn't matter for a source at all" is the sort of thing that makes me go "ok, wait, hold up, then how are you demonstrating their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Where is the actual WP:USEBYOTHERS here?" This isn't a minor quibble - in the modern day, there are massive numbers of junk news sources that are set up to give every appearance of reliability. The only way we can actually assess them is via their reputation, which requires secondary coverage in some form. We can never, not ever, assess a source's full reliability solely by look at things on their page (and things they control) and nothing else - sometimes it suffices for a quick handwave if everyone takes it as a given that they have a reputation, but ultimately it's what other people say about them and how other sources use them that decides whether they're a RS, not what they say about themselves. "I've never seen this site before, but their website looks professionally-made and well-put together and they make the right noises on their ABOUT page" is absolutely not a valid RS argument. --Aquillion (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Many academic journals are obviously reliable (per the criteria you’re discussing) but have no secondary coverage. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that that's actually true. A genuine journal will produce secondary coverage in all sorts of ways. For WP:RS, WP:USEBYOTHERS is of course secondary coverage; so is eg. other sources measuring their impact factor. If they don't have meaningful use elsewhere, and nobody has measured their impact factor, and they don't appear in a meaningful citation index or anything of that nature, then I wouldn't really want to call them a reliable source. But if you disagree and think that there are journals that are reliable despite lacking those things, feel free to list them and we can discuss what sort of secondary coverage counts for WP:RS. Like I said, I agree that the exact definition in the GNG isn't what we want, because it was made for a different context, but I don't see how a journal could have no secondary coverage at all and still be reliable (or even, honestly, real.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you agree with me that a source does not need to have been the subject of content in independent, reliable sources (like we would need for GNG) in order to be reliable, and that quality academic journals are in some cases examples of this. And presumably you also agree that the USEBYOTHERS that you would want to see from a mainstream academic to feel comfortable using their work here is well below the level of NPROF. In that case, we have no disagreement. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times

The Intercept, itself a WP:RSP, has written an article today exposing the NYT's deplorable fabricated article entitled 'Screams Without Words', written on 28 December 2023. This article went on to be the basis for many other stories in supposedly reputable media, and was largely used as a justification for the atrocities committed by Israel against the Palestinian population in Gaza in the weeks that followed. The blood of thousands of Palestinians is on the hands of the NYT for publicising such disgusting fabrications.

Such a flagrant lack of journalistic integrity, not only to hire two non-journalists to begin writing for them in October and November 2023 (Anat Schwartz and Adam Sella, coincidentally nephews by marriage), but for at least one of those people (Schwartz) to be an anti-Palestinian extremist, having liked Tweets calling for Gaza to be turned into a "slaughterhouse", is reprehensible. This afront to journalism is surely enough to have the New York Times permanently removed as a reputable source, at very least for coverage of the Gaza genocide. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure a permanent decision is in the purview of this noticeboard or the general community, but on reading the Intercept article, I do find myself concerned. There's been the bizarre coverage of trans medical care for the past couple years, now there's this un-journalistic badgering of family members of victims and stretching unverified claims without evidence into front-page spreads. I'm not sure at this point what the right step is, but I don't think it'll be right to consider the New York Times, and certainly at least the article the Intercept is reporting on, WP:GREL for content pertaining to the state of Israel's actions in Gaza. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
In a conflict full of disinformation and high emotions on both sides, I would rather wait how this story unfolds. As of now, the original story stays on the NYT website. Note even The Intercept grudingly admits there may have been sexual violence during the terrorist attack, but veils it into some weird phrasing indirectly blaming "several hundred civilians" in a "second wave". Pavlor (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
For clarity, the full context is The question has never been whether individual acts of sexual assault may have occurred on October 7. Rape is not uncommon in war, and there were also several hundred civilians who poured into Israel from Gaza that day in a “second wave,” contributing to and participating in the mayhem and violence. The central issue is whether the New York Times presented solid evidence to support its claim that there were newly reported details “establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7” — a claim stated in the headline that Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war.
The Intercept's critique of (and my concern about) the New York Times is not about whether or not any sexual assault happened, but about whether the Times presented sufficient evidence to support its claim stated in the headline Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war, i. e. an organization systematically and deliberately deploying sexual assault. I wouldn't call this a "grudging" admission or "veil[ed]" language; the Intercept is honing in on precisely where the evidence apparently warrants ambiguity but the Times chose to say it as clear fact. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I take all bombastic revelations like in The Intercept or in the original NYT story with a grain of salt. NYT may remove the article and publish an apology, or stand by its content. Other RSs will probably add their own findings to this story. Then we may judge. Pavlor (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Strongly disagree the NYT has a decades-long history of (imperfect but) excellent reporting, is considered “the newspaper” by many and is broadly (directly or indirectly) cited by a great amount of significant RS.
Its coverage of the war against between Israel and Hamas has definitely been imperfect, but so has Al-Jazeera's, the BBC's, and a long list of other sources considered RS. A topic-based depreciation would be inappropriate even if every claim you made was accurate, the best it would prove is that one specific article is insufficient to show that sexual violence in conflict was planned instead of incidental.
Regarding the article itself - I don’t love it either, but as far as errors in journalism go, I wouldn’t consider it any worse than the hospital story that the vast amount of RS fell for - at least it’s conjecture instead of such a harmful translation error. I agree with my fellow editor above, we just have to wait for the benefit of posterity to figure this out, and I would encourage citation with attribution for controversial claims coming from RS newspaper regardless of the so-called ‘side’ they are on. FortunateSons (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Looking back this morning I agree that calling for the NYT to be permanently removed was a little hasty, to say the least. However, my issue is not so much with what was contained within the article (though the hounding of Gal Abdush's family is abhorrent journalistic malpractice). My issue is more with the hiring of Schwartz and Sella, given the timing of their first articles, given the nature of these articles and given the following investigation into Schwartz' conduct on social media.
If the NYT are essentially hiring friends of friends as journalists; people with no, or incredibly limited and amateur, prior journalistic experience, to write on such a contentious and delicate topic, I think they are setting a very dangerous precedent, especially given their reputation as "the newspaper" for so many.
With relation to the article specifically, I accept that during such a chaotic time, and with so little access to the given area for foreign journalists, there will inevitably be mistakes or mis-reported stories. However, The Intercept's article on what Schwartz wrote is accusing her of far worse. In essence, they are saying that she was so desperate for a story that she failed to do her due diligence as a journalist - which is understandable given the fact that she is not one.
Again, given that the NYT is so widely reputed as a very good source, her fabricated and sensationalised accusations were used in part as justification for Israel's response to the attack by Hamas on 7 October. To skew public opinion on such an important matter is criminal, and I've no doubt that a large number of people justified the slaughter of thousands of children because of Schwartz' words.
I do believe that, given the deplorably callous actions by the NYT in the coverage of this topic, we should not use the NYT as a reputable source for any further reports on the Gaza genocide. At very least, articles written by either Gettleman, Schwartz or Sella should be blacklisted. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate that you moderated your position.
I think this issue should be split into 3: journalistic conduct, story content, and hiring.
1. conduct: if what the intercept (which I would consider less reliable that the NYT, but reliable unless proven otherwise) alleges is true and complete, that is a set of actions that would disgust any journalist I have had the pleasure (and occasionally displeasure) of meeting/talking to. That being said, for the purposes of Wikipedia, I wouldn’t consider that that be significant; it is first and foremost a human issue, but not one of reliability.
I think it’s important to add that “skewing public opinion” is not really a good point here. If the content is untrue, that’s enough not to use this specific article, and if it isn’t and you consider the changing of public opinion to be sufficient, then we would have to depreciate all pro-Palestinian sources based on a (just to be clear, highly tenuous) claim that support for Palestinians may assist one or more terror organisations in their goals.
2. Content is something we cannot know at this time. Some of what the intercept writes is plausible, some less so, but unless you are a member of the NYT staff, none of us are going to be able to verify some or all of that. We just have to wait for more reporting (from both ‘sides’) and see how this plays out. Trust me, this is as annoying to me as it is to you, but our shared impatience is unfortunately not an adequate reason for taking quick and decisive action. In the same way, we shouldn’t depreciate the NYT on an entire topic based merely on the fact that one potentially inaccurate story may be used as what you describe as a genocide, a claim (just for the benefit of uninvolved readers) considered to be likely inaccurate by many including some legal scholars, governments and some judges at the ICJ (Germany, Israel, Uganda (?), but I could be wrong, so take this with a grain of salt).
That being said, anyone justifying the intentional, direct and legally and militarily unjustified targeting of children on either side of this conflict is an unpleasant person to say the least (and to stay within policy).
3. Hiring. Oh, hiring. While definitely a complicated issue, it is pretty normal to have nepo hires. While not great, if that was the deciding factor (experience in adjacent media and a relevant professional field, assigned to work with more experienced colleagues) we really would have to depreciate half of MSM or more, something I am opposed to for a long list of obvious reasons.
  • Therefore, this article definitely needs attribution (and should be removed if a retraction occurs, which it hasn’t, afaik). Issuing a ban for the NYT on this topic as a whole or 'blacklisting' the (significantly more experienced) journalists is a widely excessive measure in my opinion and should not be undertaken. Regarding her, I would definitely recommend additional caution for future articles, but as caution is already encouraged for I/P, doing anything beyond that is unnecessary.
FortunateSons (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The Intercept article says The central issue is whether the New York Times presented solid evidence to support its claim that there were newly reported details “establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7” — a claim stated in the headline that Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war. but I couldn’t see in the original NYT article that they do actually make this “deliberately” claim? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
While there are some reasonable concerns about the NYT over some matters here (and over gender-related matters as someone noted earlier), we should not be leaning it on whether the headline was accurate, because headlines tend to be at best not precise. We don't accept headlines as reliable sources even when they're in a generally reliable source because (per WP:HEADLINES), we acknowledge that they have neither the goals nor the vetting of the articles. As such, we cannot judge the reliability of a source based on the accuracy of its headlines. (This is not intended to derail any concerns over content of the article itself.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
While I do understand Nat Gertler's rationale above, I think that if you title an article "‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7", you are quite clearly making the assertion that Hamas deliberately committed acts of sexual violence as a weapon of war. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a legitimate concern here in relation to the particular events and I don't think the NYT should just get a free pass source wise for those events. Although they are apologizing in a roundabout sort of a way, which is a good thing in principle, but still. Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I had been holding back on whether to believe these stories about October 7 and now this just makes the whole business even foggier. I just did not see militants on what was essentialy a suicide mission taking the time or even having the capacity to do rape, it is more the sort of thing that happens when they feel safe. Looking at this and Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel just makes everything more opaque but I can see the New York Times first part about "the woman in black dress" was badly founded and they should have known it. Other bits may hve a better basis but how am I supposed to judge when a reliable source like the New York Times does that? I have noticed other sources biasing by going in for questionable stories instead of just leaving out stories they don't like which I'm used to. I'm not going to say the New York Times is unreliable yet, especially as they're all getting worse and yet I need some stakes in the ground, but it is extremely annoying. NadVolum (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
While there are clearly some issues with how NYT managed the investigation of such an important topic, which is concerning, I don't think we should introduce any significant change in how we use NYT in general or indeed its other reporting on this topic. The most I would say is that we might want to avoid citing this particular investigation, or checking how it's been used if we do cite it. I also think that, given the what a long-standing RS the NYT is, we shouldn't rush into a decision. No doubt other RSs will scrutinise this (see e.g. CNN) and we can review in light of that. Finally, I felt the Intercept undermined its case by citing deeply unreliable sources such as Grayzone. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
All co-signed. Zanahary (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The Intercept article says The central issue is whether the New York Times presented solid evidence to support its claim that there were newly reported details “establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7” — a claim stated in the headline that Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war.
Therefore, the burden you have to show if you want to say the New York Times fabricated this article, is that there wasn't a pattern of gender-based violence on October 7th.
Journalists are expected to gather their own information from disparate sources. They don't have to use inline citations like we do because it's expected that secondary sources are experts at determining what information is accurate. We judge a source's skill at gathering information based on whether their output is correct.
Despite the claims otherwise here, systemic sexual assault was committed against Israeli civilians on October 7th. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. What we may be seeing is something else which is also awful which is a form of necroviolence. NadVolum (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Chess Despite the claims otherwise here, systemic sexual assault was committed against Israeli civilians on October 7th.
Would genuinely be curious to know what you base this on? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The BBC, NBC news, AP news, and The Washington Post agree there was mass sexual violence on October 7th. You say The blood of thousands of Palestinians is on the hands of the NYT for publicising such disgusting fabrications but the blood of Palestinians might as well be on the entire western media by that definition. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
mass sexual violence Which source is that in? Selfstudier (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
And mind the slippage of systematic sexual assault versus mass sexual violence, possibly systematic and possibly not. Dreadful violence took place, that sources agree upon; what is under question is what the structure of that violence was. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Reminds me of the coverage by numerous sources during the prelude to the Iraq war, Basically the media fell for the WMD crap. As a result, the public cheered the bombing of Iraq called “shock and awe”. In 2004, the NYT published a lengthy article highly critical of itself for putting too much faith in claims by government sources.[88] I've noticed over the last month, NYT and CNN coverage has changed substantially. The NYT is printing regular stories about the mass killings of Palestinians. The overall tune is changing. Like so many things, I think we need to wait for the dust to settle. But clearly the NYT article mentioned by the OP should not be used as a source. O3000, Ret. (talk) O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
What got me about that was the way they said he must be doing this that or the other to hide these weapons, and as each proved false people just said he must be even more evil and devious than we though rather that it is getting to look less likely he had these weapons. NadVolum (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The Nixonian New York Times Stonewalls on a Discredited Article About Hamas and Rape from The Nation and New York Times Launches Leak Investigation Over Report on Its Israel-Gaza Coverage from Vanity Fair, couple more to go with the CNN source mentioned above.Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The article in question is not a good enough reason to have the NYT wholly (or even partially, as per the Israel–Hamas war) deprecated. The leaked flap over its imminent promotion via podcast - which led to its cancellation on that platform - speaks volumes. Still, I would not wait for the NYT to officially retract the discredited article, which has been shown to be nothing more than a thinly-disguised piece of wartime propaganda. Therefore it should not be used as a direct reference, but only mentioned in passing whilst referencing sources such as those mentioned above. Havradim leaf a message 19:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Still reliable. The test for a generally reliable source is not "never fucks up ever". It's just disappointing to see that the lessons learned from the Nayirah testimony seem to have been forgotten. Daveosaurus (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Chipping in just to note that The Intercept is not, in fact, a blindly reliable source; the RSP specifically notes that it is a biased source, and this bias needs to be taken into account when using it. Toa Nidhiki05 20:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s a good contribution, thank you! If we read the AfDs, they are less than stellar to say the least. FortunateSons (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
All sources are biased, including the NYT. Selfstudier (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
True, but some more than others, and this is definitely some. FortunateSons (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Generic statements about reliability are beside the point. It has been shown that the NYTs, while using stringent criteria for selecting journalists who come from a pro-Palestinian background, flagrantly suspended this overrsight in publishing unverified claims by a genocidal propagandist for Israel with no professional credentials as a journalist, allowing itself to be a venue for extremist interpretations that, given its prestige, fed the flames of what we all know is an informational war game based on incenditary assertions. I've been reading for 20 years reliable reports of the sexual humiliation of Palestinians detained by Israel, while duly observing these are treated as marginalia, if ever noticed, by the NYTs. It did not apologize when exposed, but reportedly engaged in a witchhunt to find the source of leaks.It undermined its own credibility here, already in question for making much of the 36 Israeli children murdered on Oct.7, while glozing over the point that 13,000 Gaza children have been killed in Israel's onslaught, with a further 17,000 left orphaned, without any kin in their once extended families alive to care for them. Nishidani (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Investigating leaks is standard practice for most companies, and so is some degree of bias. However, as many of the claims are now considered plausible by the UN while the Guardian claim is backed by UNRWA specifically, you can’t argue for the latter and then disparage the former.
Additionally, while wrong, nepotism is just normal in journalism and not a sign of unreliability. FortunateSons (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Reliable. While the Schwartz piece turned out unreliable, like unreliable was NYT's reporting on WMD in Iraq, this does not mean all or most of NYT reporting is unreliable. Even the best academic journals retract articles from time to time, which however doesn't make them automatically unreliable. We have a guideline for that: Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. This is what's happening – editors seem to refrain from relying on Schwartz's garbage. — kashmīrī TALK 11:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Agree that the solution would be to follow context, and evaluate according to "the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports". Blanket bans bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • One incident isn't going to make a source unreliable (certainly not a source with the history and reputation of the NYT.) That said, it might be worth eventually following up on this and seeing if things like this lead to it acquiring a reputation for bias in specific contexts, which might eventually deserve a note on its RSP entry. Being wrong every so often is not a reliability issue. Being biased repeatedly in the same direction, especially if there's indications of institutional pressure within the org, isn't a reliability issue, though it might be worth noting. Being wrong repeatedly in the same direction, with an indication that there is institutional pressure sufficient to not just cause biases but to distort reporting to the point where it is actually inaccurate - that is to say, institutional pressure to actively ignore the truth, or to publish with reckless disregard for it - is a reliability issue (this was, I think, what ultimately got Fox downgraded)... but I don't think that we're there yet with an institution otherwise as venerable as the NYT. --Aquillion (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Remembering those weapons of mass destruction that were never found that NYT signal boosted the messaging on. TarnishedPathtalk 12:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Your Basin and Donna Glamour

Would you consider https://www.yourbasin.com/ and/or https://www.donnaglamour.it/ as reliable sources? DrKilleMoff (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking for a possible carve out for the legal news section of Fleshbot.com to see if it can be used for the Emily Willis article mainly, but also if it can be used elsewhere.
I had added that the case against one of the parties in a pending defamation suit was seemingly dropped due to a public apology issued by one of the parties in a tweet which was later removed, per the article cited.
It was removed at Special:Diff/1213055620 with the summary of →‎Defamation lawsuit: This is a contentious issue. Fleshbot should not be used here. Further, better to describe why there is a lawsuit rather than quoting legalese (the other portion regarding legalese was directed at a previous edit by a different user)
The original lawsuit was covered by Xbiz, which is considered a RS. However, they never updated the outcome of the lawsuit, and it seems the only source showing the published apology from one of the parties is a screenshot of said tweet on a Fleshbot article, which was removed and not archived elsewhere. Going by WP:NOTGOSSIP, I feel like this is something readers to her article would have a reasonable interest in learning the outcome of, because it is unfortunately one of the things she has received coverage for. The only prior discussion regarding the site in question was here, but it seemed more geared towards interviews and not using them because they have a financial interest in selling dvds. It was noted in that discussion that if that was overlooked, they could be used for basic non contentious claims. I believe WP:CONTEXTFACTS would factor in to if this could be used or not in this instance, since I see nothing that can be gained from a third party reporting on a public apology or a deleted tweet in a lawsuit for which they were not involved in.
If we are considering allowing the legal section in as a whole, or judging the reliability on a case by case basis, the relevant link to the archives is here

Awshort (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Awshort (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

My first question would be whether the records of the Los Angeles Superior Court reflect such a change in the suit. BD2412 T 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I checked court records, and the case was not dropped, but is continuing against both defendants. Nor do I read the Fleshbot article to say that the case was dropped. I’m going to note here that the case is Banuelos v. Correro, No. 21STCV37675, mainly so I won’t have to look it up again if there are further questions. Obviously, these court documents cannot be used in a BLP article. John M Baker (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Funding Universe - should it be depreciated

Hi. I have been recently finding Funding Universe as a ref on quite a few corporate pages. I don't think it is that accurate. Take Walkers Crisps for example, on Funding Universe it says Frito-Lay purchased the business, however articles in business magazine UPI and the New York Times from the time definitely reported PepsiCo Inc directly purchasing the business, not its subsidiary. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There was actually an RfC on Funding Universe in 2019; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 257 § Rfc: Fundinguniverse.com. The "Walkers Snack Foods Ltd. History" entry says, "PepsiCo, Inc. acquired Walkers Crisps and Smith Foods from BSN (later Danone) for $1.35 billion (£900 million)", so this page (which is actually a republication of International Directory of Company Histories) seems accurate. — Newslinger talk 15:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Inaturalist.org

I noticed this source and that it is cites Wikipedia (WP:CIRCULAR) as well as letting anyone upload to the site, after searching the it I can see it's used over 2,000 times on Wikipedia. Previous discussions are here: [89] [90]. The latter is only about photos.

Use of the source varies [91] but in the first result of Suriname it's used in a way that seems like original research to claim it has high biodiversity. On Odisha it's used to identify species inhabiting the area as well as the notability/recognition of this.

I don't consider it a reliable source and fail to see how it could meet reliability given the circular content but I'm not sure on what to do given the site is used so much. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an iNaturalist expert, but the impression I get is that it's quite highly regarded (essentially the Wikipedia of botany, birdwatching, etc). I don't think it cites Wikipedia for the actual observations; it seems to me like what it cites is, e.g., the explanatory text it has in the sidebar. jp×g🗯️ 06:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The particular example of Suriname (which is replicated in Biodiversity of Suriname) is a weird choice to establish that claim, since there are better sources that outright state the same thing ([92], [93])without having to infer it by all the different observations. I believe iNaturalist is a pretty good source for corroborating that something exists in a location but citations like these aren't necessarily unreliable but a little hard to follow/draw conclusions from. Reconrabbit 15:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I am very familiar with iNaturalist. It's fun and useful for personal or off-Wiki research purposes, but completely unreliable for the vast majority of factual claims made in an encyclopedia. The observations themselves are primary sources, even if verified by community experts, which can easily be used to mislead or perform original research or improper synthesis. As a user-generated database, its location-specific species checklists or search results such as [94] and [95] should not be used as at all as references per WP:USERG. The taxon descriptions are pulled from various sources, including Wikipedia, which raises WP:CIRCULAR issues. While sometimes new discoveries (e.g. new species and range extensions) are initially made on iNaturalist, these are unreliable or undue at best until reliably published in a journal or other credible source (Wikipedia should never be the first place publishing breaking news or novel information, regardless of how 'true' it is). Similarly, it's much better to cite a reliable source for a statement like "X National Park is known for these prominent species" or "Species Y occurs in X National Park", as opposed to mining observations to highlight arbitrary primary occurrences which gives a myopic view based on the known biases of iNaturalist users (e.g. flowers and birds get much more photographed than worms and spiders by the general user). Certain iNaturalist pages may have use as an External link (with respect to WP:EL), and indeed, iNaturalist taxon pages are linked in many instances of {{Taxonbar}} as well as External link sections, but this should be considered on an indvidual basis, and External links are not held to the same standards as reliable sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

CounterPunch and MondoWeiss as BLP reliable sources

Discussion on that topic here to which RSN-versed editors might want to contribute. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Group of AI Generated "News" sites

I stumbled across this a few months (December) ago and totally forgot to post about it here.

I found a group of websites with news/blog posts that are pretty clearly AI generated, and use AI generated images on them. I don't think I've fully fleshed out the full list of sites, but this is what I have found so far (They all link to each others in various ways):

  • Isp.page
  • Ts2.ai
  • Satproviders.com
  • Isp.today
  • elblog.pl
  • ts2.space

Some of these do seem to be used as references in various Wikipedia articles.

Of special note is ts2.space. Back in December when I was first investigating this (This was the original site that led me down this rabbit hole), they had a blog section filled with similar articles (and linking to the above sites). I don't seem to be the only one to notice this, as the TS2 Talk Page has someone complaining about the AI Articles on it. Interestingly, the edit history of the TS2 page has some hints as to what happened, suggesting that someone bought them out and is "transforming" the companies (See this edit and this edit).

I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia in general, so I'm not sure what the best next steps would be. Cmdrraimus (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As this is a form of news aggregation, no, we should use the sources they use, and not them Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Where did you see sources? Some articles ([96], [97], [98], [99]) are generated from YouTube videos, do you consider the videos sources?
However, some other articles from this network do not mention any sources, or the source is not linked properly ([100], [101], [102], [103]). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Slater, we should use their sources. Regarding AI content in general, use is generally considered incompatible with Wikipedias policies (for good reasons). FortunateSons (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I have checked them, and most of them indeed seem to be entirely AI-generated, often based on YouTube videos. I also found two more websites that post AI-generated articles from this network, cremasb.com and worldreportnow.com.
I support blacklisting the ones that host the AI-generated articles themselves or directly redirect (cremasb.com, worldreportnow.com, elblog.pl, ts2.ai, satproviders.com, isp.today), which I believe is the appropriate protocol for spammy websites that may confuse Wikipedia editors. I did not find evidence of AI-generated content on ts2.space, ts2.tech and isp.page. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Regarding TS2.space, they definitely had AI articles before on their blog, which appears to have been scrubbed clean now. That was actually the first site that led me to discover all the other sites. If you look at the site in on the internet archive, you can see examples of it. And some of these now non-existent articles are used as references here and there on Wikipedia.
Regarding isp.page, I included that one because some of their articles state that they were originally posted on the other links that use AI generated material (ISP.today and satProviders off the top of my head). Given the fact that they seem to link to multiple members, and the homepage has a icon for isp.today, I suspect that they are related.
Additionally, I've been using the Link Search , and some of these are being randomly added to articles that have no relevance. An example being Eco_Femme, which just has a link to the isp.today homepage as a citation 22.
What should my next steps be on dealing with these sources? Cmdrraimus (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I recommend posting them in MediaWiki talk: Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll go post about it over there. Before I do, how did you find those additional pages posting the articles? Just a google search, or something else. I'm wondering if I should take a little more effort to try to flesh out this group of sites. Cmdrraimus (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I just followed some random links on the original websites you posted. I don't think it's worth investing more time in this for now. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll post what you and I have found so far to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions. Thanks Cmdrraimus (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 In progress. I'm in the process of removing citations of these self-published and/or AI-generated sites from article space. — Newslinger talk 23:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Trend of AI-generated websites

Old-time Music (oldtimemusic.com)

Old-time Music (oldtimemusic.com) is an AI-generated website that is currently used in 134 articles HTTPS links HTTP links.

Their "Who We Are" page (archived) lists authors with questionable profile pictures. For example, a few reverse image searches on Bing and Google Images show that:

The website includes 417,700 articles on "song meanings" written in the same FAQ style.

I propose a mass removal of all uses of oldtimemusic.com from Wikipedia, and anyone is welcome to help. There is a WikiProject Spam entry at WP:RSPAM § oldtimemusic.com and a COIBot report is pending. — Newslinger talk 03:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I support removing them, and I think we have reached a consensus about it in the previous post. Do you have any sources that could be considered for replacement, especially in terms of song interpretations? Or is it better to just completely remove the content too? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I think it would depend, but perhaps the default should just be a {{cn}} tag. Remsense诉 08:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the previous discussion, which I missed. I also support adding oldtimemusic.com to the spam blacklist. Since AI-generated content frequently draws from other web sources, I expect the site's song descriptions to heavily incorporate user-generated content from song annotation sites such as Genius and SongMeanings, which cannot be cited on Wikipedia. Music publications (see WP:RSMUSIC) might occasionally cover the song meanings of popular songs, but the number of songs covered will certainly be much lower than 417,700. I would completely remove claims that only cite oldtimemusic.com unless a reliable replacement source is readily available, which might not be the case for most of these citations. — Newslinger talk 09:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Added to spam blacklist. — Newslinger talk 09:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Great, I have cleaned up the pages now, the remaining hits seem legitimate, from before an AI-content generator took over the URL. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Telegraph reliable for Israel-Palestine conflict?

I have been getting a lot of questionable articles from the Telegraph recommended in my MSN news feed. Stuff like this: [108] and [109] and [110] and [111]. There was even one that can be taken as a personal attack against Muslims [112]. Obviously some are opinion but it is filed in "news". Full list of Israel articles from Telegraph for reference: [113]

Since the Israel-Palestine conflict (and surrounding protests) is a contentious topic, I want to know if it is possible that Telegraph.co.uk is not reliable for this particular conflict area as of recent. If not, how an RfC could be built to properly assess the reliability for ARBPIA. Awesome Aasim 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

"no go areas" is pure conspiracy nut rubbish, yes. Is anyone objecting to these clearly opinion articles being removed as opinion and not news? - David Gerard (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
It is an RS, with a reasonably well known bias, but that would not be enough to change its overall reliability rating. Selfstudier (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
A brief look at the articles that aren’t clearly labeled opinion suggests there is no issue here; they are reporting on comments made by prominent politicians, not making the comments themselves.
What issue do you see? What aspect do you think is unreliable? BilledMammal (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
It's generally reliable like WP:RSP says. It says there it is biased for politics - it is right wing and they copy some strange American ideas, but I agree with the assessment there. NadVolum (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
"They hurt someones feelings" is not a valid reason to challenge the reliability of a source. Zaathras (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Not sure that is relevant in this case. There isn't anything in the post about feelings. There is a potential reference to a value system in which an attack against a religious group in a source would be considered troubling. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Obviously, but the issue once again is there isn't this good distinction between news and opinion. This is something I have seen at a similar level on Fox News, MSNBC, etc.
Like what is this and this with respect to this slogan? I think I am failing to see how non-neutral sources can be high quality sources on a WP:CT. Awesome Aasim 13:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a neutral source on a political issue. All sources have biases as they are written by people who have political viewpoints. If we exclude sources based on the fact they are biased, we would be left with very little. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Two of those articles are comments i.e. option pieces. They are not suitable as sources unless you want to source the writer's personal views. Cortador (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Established RS with right-wing bias. The "comment" articles should be treated as opinion pieces not usable as sources for facts. The news articles reporting the views of politicians etc are reliable as sources and the fact that a mainstream RS is reporting the views of the politicians etc is a good indicator they might be due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The Simcox "no-go areas" thing has been widely reported in other British media. While the phrase itself is clearly sourced to conspiracy theory nonsense, a charitable interpretation is that he is saying that some Jewish people feel scared to go near the protest marches. This is probably true, despite the presence of a large Jewish block on the demos. In any case, the article linked is accurately reporting Simcox's stated opinion and so doesn't really affect our assessment of the Telegraph's reliability.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not a reliability issue. There is no doubt that Simcox did say it. The question is whether we should report it, so WP:DUE is the relevant policy. Since Simcox is not some random guy but the government's counter-extremism commissioner, his opinion is probably noteworthy. Alaexis¿question? 09:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sonic

@The Kip @David Tornheim Good evening I hope I am not disturbing you Mr. David and Mrs/Mr. Kip but I wanted to ask you something please, I would like to be able to fix something in Sonic X wiki regarding the plot of the seasons and episodes obviously my reliable source is the anime itself with the original version, however there is a problem how can I put a source which in this case is a streaming site (precisely [114]https://archive.org/details/sonic-x-complete-series-discotek-media-japanese-language-collection-bluray-rips-mp4-english-subs/Season%2B3%2B(Subtitled)/3-26%2BWhere%2BPlanets%2Bare%2BBorn%2B(Subtitled).mp4 )? Is it possible to put him as a reference? Or can I at least put in parentheses the scene, the character who says the speech at tot minute until tot minute? Because I wouldn't know how to do to prove that I'm not making things up and I checked the site of [115]http://web.archive.org/web/20130617034121/http://www.teamartail.com/sonicx/51/ but but it only has the screenshots not scripts or text or anything else how could it be solved in this case for the source? Is it possible to do as I said before? Please I need some help 😔 Best regards Crystal890 (talk) Crystal890 (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, I’m probably not the correct person to ask about this. The Kip 00:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. ^ "CNET's Parent Company Preparing to Kickstart the AI Content Engine". Futurism.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_430&oldid=1214703537"