Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Healthline: deprecate or blacklist?

A May 2023 RSN discussion about Healthline raises the question about whether Healthline should be deprecated as generally unreliable or blacklisted as fabrication and spam on many of its health-related article pages.

Healthline: [1]

Healthline is frequently used by novice editors to source medical, nutrition, and lifestyle content. Its name implies health expertise, and its author(s) or editors are identified as having "medically reviewed" articles, despite most having no medical expertise (BS or MS degrees in non-medical fields). Healthline commonly cites individual primary studies to extrapolate to an anti-disease effect or "health benefit", a term used in many of its articles on foods, phytochemicals, and supplements.

Previous RSN discussion: Feb 2022 goji berries

Examples of spam health misinformation are Healthline articles on coffee antioxidants ("Many of coffee’s positive health effects may be due to its impressive content of powerful antioxidants"), anti-disease effects of black tea, "proven health benefits" of ashwagandha, and "proven health benefits" of blueberries, among dozens of others. Search "antioxidant" on Healthline and browse any retrieved article for the extent of misinformation (where only vitamins A-C-E apply as antioxidants for the human diet).

Diffs on goji - this talk discussion on goji nutrition and health benefits; continued further here.

Numerous others under my history, here.

It may be justified to blacklist Healthline as a perpetual source of fabrication and spam. Similar to reputations in scientific publishing generally, blatant misinformation destroys confidence permanently in the rest of the source.

Seeing an edit containing a Healthline source is WP:REDFLAG for revising or reverting the edit. There are no circumstances where a Healthline source could not be MEDRS-sourced.

Healthline should be blacklisted. Zefr (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

What's the evidence that Healthline is actually spam ("the use of messaging systems to send multiple unsolicited messages (spam) to large numbers of recipients for the purpose of commercial advertising, for the purpose of non-commercial proselytizing, for any prohibited purpose (especially the fraudulent purpose of phishing), or simply repeatedly sending the same message to the same user", according to our article on the same subject), or even WP:REFSPAM ("a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content, but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation")?

It sounds like the only thing happening here is that editors use a source that they believe is reliable, but that better informed editors disagree with them, not to mention the few especially strict MEDRS supporters such as yourself. That doesn't actually make it spam. It's a health news website. It shouldn't be used for any purpose that we wouldn't use a newspaper article for, but I've seen no evidence of it being eligible for inclusion in the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. You could ask admins like Kuru or Ohnoitsjamie, but we don't normally add things just to keep people from complying with WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.

P.S. Of course blueberries have "proven health benefits". One might wish for a Wikipedia editor to write something staid and obvious like "Blueberries, like basically all fruits and vegetables, contain Vitamin C, which is essential to human health" rather than something breathless about blueberries being uniquely near-magical, but it's still true that they have "proven health benefits", especially for anyone who doesn't fancy a case of scurvy. (Mmm, blueberry season is just starting here...). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I always go to the medical topics I know best to check the source. For Tourette syndrome (FA Tourette syndrome), the following healthline statements are utterly wrong (not just subtly wrong) -- samples only:

• It is a syndrome that involves recurrent involuntary tics, which are repeated, involuntary physical movements and vocal outbursts. Vocal tics need not be outbursts at all; gulping is an example of a vocal tic. This information furthers a stereotype about TS.
• The symptoms include uncontrollable tics and spontaneous vocal outbursts. Ditto, plus see Tourette syndrome for how wrong the "uncontrollable" is.
• People diagnosed with Tourette syndrome often have both a motor tic and a vocal tic. No, they must have both for a TS diagnosis.
• Symptoms are generally most severe during your early teen years. Concocted from I don't know where ...

Stopped there. Moving on to Lewy bodies (FA dementia with Lewy bodies):

• Dementia with Lewy bodies, also known as Lewy body dementia, is caused by protein deposits in nerve cells. 1. Lewy body dementia and dementia with lewy bodies are not the same thing. 2. The cause of DLB is unknown.

So, again stopped there. Adding this to Zefr's examples, yes, this site is rubbish and should be blacklisted. We shouldn't have to run around removing potential rubbish added by unsuspecting or new editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that it's not spam per se, there is a precedent for blacklisting poor sources that are frequently misued as references, NaturalNews being the first example to come to mind. Now NaturalNews is in a category of its own in terms of being complete rubbish. Healthline's own article suggests that there is mixed opinion as to it being a "good" source. I'm OK with blacklisting a link on the grounds of it being a frequently misused poor source, but on the conditions that (1) we have a strong consensus that it has no use in Wikipedia as a references and (2) the existing 500+ links are cleaned up prior to blacklisting. Neither of those conditions are currently met as far as I can see. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the Natural News discussion (not an RfC) resulted in adding to the spam blacklist. And Beetstra changed the spam-blacklist guideline to add "some sites which are persistently abused for shock effects, and some sites which have been added after independent consensus" after I had objected about adding ancient-origins.net. A more recent example is that my request to remove Breitbart from the spam blacklist (since spamming if it ever existed was stopped) was archived. Thus there are indeed precedents, and I regard them all as bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

John's right about it being a big jump from nothing to deprecation or blacklisting, but another option is an AbuseFilter that says something like "Healthline.com is generally not a reliable source for medical information".

Another option would be to have a bot post individual messages ("I see you added <badsite> to [[Possibly medical article]]. This is generally considered a poor source for health-related content. Could you please replace it with a better source?") WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

it seems like overkill to jump immediately to deprecation or blacklisting. Why not start by clarifying on RSP that it is unreliable? I think we now have the necessary discussions and consensus for that. John M Baker (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it technically qualifies until this RFC closes, but I've boldly added it as GUNREL for now. If anyone wants to amend or remove, feel free. As for an edit filter... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm not really sure. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, get rid of it.

Their articles are written almost entirely by random freelance writers with zero qualifications, and then "medically reviewed" by "medical advisors" who are very frequently quacks:

• This reiki [2] was written by a yoga teacher and "medically reviewed" by "doctor" with a PhD in psychology from for-profit online Walden University (their psych PhD program is unaccredited!). Her bio asserts she's a holistic nurse, professor (at Walden), reiki master, clinical hypnotherapist, and expert in "complementary and alternative therapies, autoimmune disease, stress and coping, and obstetrics". She was also the advisor for this pro-homeopathy article and this throat chakra article that starts out "Chakras play a role in the flow of energy in your body. Running from the base of your spine to the top of your head, the seven main chakras each correspond to specific nerve bundles and organs in your body."
• This pro-chiropractic article reviewed by a DPT (with degree from for-profit University of St Augustine) who has no publications and whose professional qualifications list is so weak he included CPR certification. The article cites case studies, Frontiers junk, and weak reviews in weak journals.
• This credulous piece on homeopathic arnica spends a lot of text uncritically summarizing its health claims and mechanism while minimizing the fact that there's no evidence it works ("however, more research is needed"). It was written by a dietitian and personal trainer and underwent expert review by another dietitian.
• What Are the 7 Chakras and How Can You Unblock Them?, written by someone with a master's in counseling and medically reviewed by a yoga instructor. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on your post, I went back to look at the Tourette syndrome healthline author, and what I found is really weird. She appears to be a legit neurologist, but that doesn't mean she knows anything about TS. But as an indication that there are deeper problems at healthline.com, here she wrote a mostly accurate article for healthgrades.com. At about the same time (2022). If she's capable of writing (generally) acceptable content about TS, what went wrong at healthline? Are they just paid to rubberstamp rubbish without really checking, or what the heck? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The TS healthline author is actually a nurse practitioner; the article was just "reviewed" by a legit neurologist. JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I was just coming to correct that, and you beat me to it ... correct ... I was referring to the reviewer. In other words, she didn't even review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I would agree Healthline should be deprecated, or at least considered generally unreliable. I think I've probably been duped by the "medically reviewed articles" bit in the past, I bet I've added it somewhere I shouldn't have as a result, thinking it was high quality as an RS. But these examples and the general evidence above has convinced me we should not consider it reliable, as what they consider "medical expert" is clearly not what Wikipedia considers expertise. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think Healthline suffers from a problem with many health websites that see their audience wanting health-enhancing advice and not just health-fixing advice (compare with NHS). So they overstate the benefits and are overly credulous in much the same way as newspapers tend to be. Outside of that area, are they terrible? I know Sandy has VERY high standards for the topics she is concerned about, and many sources (including authors of reviews in professional journals) don't meet them. I had a look at their article on tuberous sclerosis and it is IMO absolutely fine. I had a look at epilepsy and didn't finish reading it but what I read seemed absolutely fine too. The language and style of the articles is heavily dumbed down. This has advantages (the general reader, wanting to add some sourced info on a disease, can at least understand the source) compared to what MEDRS might recommend (an -- often paywalled -- review using jargon and aimed at other neurologists). But when you start with dumbed-down source, it is difficult to raise the language level back up to more formal writing. But then that's not much different to the NHS website, and I wouldn't want to blacklist that.

Perhaps the best thing is to warn about its use for "wellness" topics. For general medical issues, it probably is ok, not ideal but not terrible. If someone wrote about "First aid for seizures" and cited Healthline, I don't think Wikipedia would be improved by an editor removing the source, removing the content or tagging the content as unreliably sourced. It would be fine, and a whole lot better than most people know about how to do first aid for seizures.

Btw, I get that blueberries are over sold as a superfood. But it isn't like someone is selling something harmful or just water or placebos. The claim above that they have "have meagre nutrient content" just just bunk. Of course fruit is mostly water, but these berries are packed with more of certain nutrients than other common berries and fruit that people eat as snacks or sides. We certainly want people/readers to eat them as part of a fruit & veg rich diet. Telling people their nutrient content is "meagre" is just as false as claiming they are "super" and more dangerous because the risk then is people think eat fruit-flavoured sweets or chocolate bars for their snack instead, telling themselves that blueberries are no better.

Another complaint. A "dietician" is a proper medical professional. Zefr's comment might make one think a GP or a cardiologist or a neurologist, being "properly medically qualified", might be better placed to talk about health effects of food. A dietician is absolutely the qualification one would want, and anyone who's dealt with a hospital dietician will know how professional and knowlegable they are. But like with anything, especially perhaps in the US, qualifications and learning can be put aside if one gets paid to write gushing articles about super foods. But I've been burnt by so called doctors writing on Wikipedia way beyond their area of expertise, to the point where what they write is nonsense and unintellible and they clearly don't understand the source text at all. So a "medical qualification" isn't a guarantee that someone is competent to write about all areas of medical knowledge. A cardiologist who once took a few lectures on epilepsy medications, aged nineteen and thirty years ago, is not imo an expert on epilepsy.

Lastly, wrt Healthline "cites individual primary studies". The rule against citing primary studies is a Wikipedia quirk because our editors are not assumed to have medical knowledge themselves. Applying that rule to other publications is wrong. The Lancet review that we might prefer to be used as a source also "cites individual primary studies", it just, hopefully, isn't so credulous and gushing. -- Colin°^Talk 09:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Colin - addressing the nutrient content of blueberries, 1) compare the analysis of our blueberry article where the Daily Values (for a 100 gram amount) only of vitamin C, vitamin K, and manganese are at moderate levels vs. a more nutrient-rich plant food like spinach. The blueberry nutrient contents are meager.

2) Then read again the sensationalism of unproven anti-disease benefits for blueberries in the Healthline article, "medically reviewed" by a dietitian (not a medical expert). One needs no better example of fabrication and misinformation than this for deprecating/blacklisting Healthline, and there are dozens of Healthline articles with similarly deceitful anti-disease claims.

3) Note also that anti-disease effects of the Healthline article derive from primary research and leaps of interpretation from preliminary unconfirmed findings to a headline on disease prevention. That is WP:SYNTH.

4) on your comment, "For general medical issues, it probably is ok": find one WP medical article or statement where a Healthline source exists now, and where a better MEDRS source isn't readily available. This is where WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDORG sources are needed; reviewing them proves that Healthline has no place in any of these guidelines. Zefr (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I hear you, Colin, but by allowing hosting of these marginal and sensationalized and inaccurate sources, we allow them to continue to exist (and in this case, they are doing nothing but paying professionals to rubberstamp rubbish). Wikipedia is big enough and important enough that we can be the factor that keeps them in business. If the student editors don't find these sources, they'll have to move on to real sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, readers would have no idea that we only consider Healthline "good enough" to cite for basic non-wellness things; what they would glean from a Healthline source being used in a medical article is that Healthline is an acceptable website for all medical information.

I also maintain there is a huge difference between a "medical professional" and a "medical expert", and another gulf between "expert" and "expert in the relevant field". A member of the American Society for Nutrition is what I would expect for the expert adviser on a medical nutrition article, not someone with a bachelor's in nutrition + internship (all that's required for an RD) or a master's. And I definitely would not want a dietitian who went anywhere near the Integrative and Functional Medicine scam. The blueberry article makes some egregious extrapolations from primary studies--like claiming a 4-week blueberry/apple juice regimen led to a 20% reduction in oxidative DNA damage when actually the study tested single-strand breaks induced by H2O2 tx in ex vivo lymphocytes collected after avoiding all antioxidant foods for 5 days and then again after the diet regimen (there was no separate control group), and the study itself states within the whole study population effects were modest and strongly biased by large inter-individual differences. Despite this, we did find a significant protection against H2O2-induced oxidative DNA damage. However, we also observed a significant increase in BPDE-DNA adducts induced ex vivo upon intervention.

Likewise, someone with a PsyD/PhD in psych is not qualified to be reviewing articles on TS written by a freelance writer, health reporter, and author with zero credentials. Predictably, there are several issues with the TS Healthline article, including the claim that There’s no known cure for TS, but most people can expect to have a normal lifespan. There is not enough longitudinal data to assert that "most" TSC patients will have a normal lifespan (certainly not without medical treatment! This source states Furthermore, although TSC patients are known to experience higher mortality than the general population, there are few reports on the death rate, standardized mortality ratio (SMR), and estimated life expectancy), and the article operates under the assumption that the patient is a child and will receive all necessary early interventions (as if universal healthcare is available everywhere). The writing suffers from the lack of sophistication expected of people with no training in biology, delivering such clumsy and ambiguous lines as Scientists have identified two genes called TSC1 and TSC2. These genes can cause TS, but having only one of these can result in the disease. Is this trying to say that a mutation in only one of the genes is needed for disease, or is it alluding to the fact that only one mutant allele of either gene is needed (autosomal dominant)?

There is legitimately no reason for Healthline to be used as a source anywhere when there are far better non-scammy sources available for every imaginable use-case. JoelleJay (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Zefr compares blueberries with spinach and cites USDA raw data. The reason we don't allow editors to conduct original research is that they come up with misleading falsehoods based on their interpretation of primary sources, like "meagre" for the nutrient content of a healthy berry or do wrongheaded things like comparing a berry you eat as a snack with a leaf you typically eat in a cooked meal (compare instead with raspberry, strawberry or grapes if you want to consider an alternative). You cherry pick three nutrients out of dozens and compare 100g of each, when one might typically eat different weights of such things. If a source you wanted to attack did that, you'd use those mistakes against them. Later you accuse them of WP:SYNTH. Em, SYNTH is a Wikipedia only thing. Nobody outside of Wikipedia can ever commit that crime. They are allowed to do it. They might not be any good at it, but we let our sources do it, and if we didn't nobody would ever be able to draw conclusions.

You ask "find one WP medical article or statement where a Healthline source exists now, and where a better MEDRS source isn't readily available". That isn't how "reliable sources" or WP:V or even WP:MEDRS works. We have no rule anywhere on Wikipedia that editors can only ever use the best sources. Your opinion of "readily available" likely differs from most people and most potential editors. You might know to to use PubMed to find recent reviews that are freely available and to recognise decent journals from the predatory and dubious. Do you think many people using Pubmed to search for blueberry nutrition are going to pick the good stuff? Most people use Google, and that's what "readily available" means to them. And even assuming they find a good medical source, it may use jargon. Often it might just contain low-level information (like those USDA tables) that we absolutely can't just glance at and write things like "meagre" in our own words. In other words, those "MEDRS" sources are hard to find, hard to use and very easy to misuse. A source that tells it at a level our readers understand can have advantages for many editors wishing to write but as I said above, there can be problems with sources that lack depth.

Wrt picking holes in the TS article. These are minor flaws. Anyone here want me to review one of their Wikipedia articles and I can guarantee to find similar and write a whole paragraph about the flaws in one sentence. Again, that's not how we judge sources. For the record, I agree the two quoted sentences about the genes are wrong. It should say "A fault in one of these two genes can cause TS". (Essentially, you need both of these genes to be working to avoid TSC).

Wrt lifespan, its complex. The sentence you quote is essentially ok, and widely repeated in the literature (The NHS says the same thing). It used to be thought everyone with TSC was badly affected and all had learning disability, epilepsy and skin manifestations. But that was only picking up people in hospital or institutions. Population studies show more have it and don't know until they have a child who gets it worse. The whole question of what percentage of people with TSC (in a population) have X, Y or Z symptoms is difficult to ascertain if you only really get studied if you present in hospital. So the extreme variability of the condition makes it hard to write one sentence about lifespan. This paper attempts to estimate and comes up with a lifespan from birth of 70 years. I don't know their statistical methods enough to know if they attempt to include people with TSC who didn't end up as TSC patients in their hospital. I don't know how they work that out for people dying age 70 then (2019) who would have been born in 1949 and faced a remarkably different medical outlook (no MRI, limited brain surgery capability, few epilepsy drugs, life in an institution). My mind boggles really about how you might work out how long someone diagnosed age 1, say, with TSC might live? You'd have to, for a start, assume there no more medical advances, which based on recent advances, seems both unlikely and unfairly pessimistic. They compare this to the US average of 79 using this source and it was indeed correct in 2019 but has fallen since to 76. This UK source shows how going back even to the 1980s shows a big drop, particularly for men. But what is "normal". You could put your statistical pedant's hat on, or you could say well I guess it means I will likely grow old. And, em, 70 is old.

But would a MEDRS sourced claim "The lifespan for people born with TSC in the US in 2019 is 70 years" be any more educationally helpful or better than what Healthline say in their whole section. Our reader thinks, "Wow, my child with TSC is going to live to be 70. That's not bad." But that's just not true though. If their heart tumour is too big, they'll die shortly after birth. They may develop a blockage in their brain ventricle that requires a shunt, and then that gets infected and they die. In early teenage they may get a tumour growing in the brain that needs removed and they die on the table. In their twenties, they might get sudden death in epilepsy. In their thirties, their blood-rich tumour on their kidney might suddenly burst and they bleed to death on the way to hospital. If female, in middle age they may well get LAM and may die horribly or get a lung transplant, with all the risks of that. Or they may be lucky and rich enough to get one of the newer $$$$ TSC-specific drugs like everolimus. And even if medically physically healthy, they are prone to neurological and psychological issues, with all the risks to health and self harm that involves. I'm actually struggling right now to think of another condition that comes with more "ways you might die, but might not".

Yes, Healthline is aimed at a US/Western audience who are encouraged to get the best healthcare and with that they might live a long life. The Healthline article has a section "What Is the Long-Term Outlook for People with Tuberous Sclerosis?" and does say "Because symptoms vary so greatly in each person, so does long-term outlook" but you didn't quote that bit, because it doesn't help the case against them. It doesn't differ, fundamentally, from the "Outlook" section in the NHS page.

So, apart from missing "A fault in one of " when they mention the genes, what's the problem. You claim the "The writing suffers from the lack of sophistication expected of people with no training in biology". Well, for a start it is aimed at a general audience. Please read some of the NHS pages and you'll find extremely unsophisticated writing, and deliberately so. But do you really think "training in biology" comes with a "writing medical/scientific articles for a lay audience" module? I've reviewed and read enough Wikipedia articles written by doctors to know that is no guarantee of quality writing (or even, seeming to understand what they are writing about, and not getting basic stuff like prevalence and incidence confused). Look, any one of us can rant and pick faults, and their Wellness material is definitely to be avoided, but I think in terms of Wikipedia's requirements for sources, for standard medical content, I'm not seeing a general problem that is sufficient for a blacklist. -- Colin°^Talk 09:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would address more specifically whichever editors you're calling "you" since I did not say many of the things you claim "I" (or any one person) said.

Drawing clinical generalizations from single studies is discouraged for all tertiary health information providers, not just wikipedia. Healthline purports to be a tertiary source, not a secondary review article or medical journalism outlet (but medical reporters guidelines also strongly emphasize citing secondary evidence-based reviews over primary case control studies), so it should be held to higher standards in how it justifies an intervention. Wikipedia editors who do not know how to find and recognize high-quality readily-available biomedical sources should not be editing biomedical information in the first place, but when they do then having a filter to flag bad sources of info prevents us from unintentionally endorsing those sources.

Wrt picking holes in the TS article. These are minor flaws. Anyone here want me to review one of their Wikipedia articles and I can guarantee to find similar and write a whole paragraph about the flaws in one sentence. Again, that's not how we judge sources. For the record, I agree the two quoted sentences about the genes are wrong. It should say "A fault in one of these two genes can cause TS". (Essentially, you need both of these genes to be working to avoid TSC).

Stating in the first paragraph of a tertiary health information source aimed at laypeople that "people with TSC can expect to have a normal lifespan" is bad. The NHS source is orders of magnitude better because it faithfully reflects the heterogeneity in lifespan and morbidity and presents a realistic picture of potential treatment burden all in the same section:

The outlook for people with tuberous sclerosis can vary considerably.
Some people have few symptoms and the condition has little effect on their life, while others – particularly those with a faulty TSC2 gene or obvious problems from an early age – can have severe and potentially life-threatening problems that require lifelong care.
Many people will have a normal lifespan, although a number of life-threatening complications can develop. These include a loss of kidney function, a serious lung infection called bronchopneumonia and a severe type of epileptic seizure called status epilepticus.
People with tuberous sclerosis may also have an increased risk of developing certain types of cancer, such as kidney cancer, but this is rare.

This is in contrast to the outlook section on HL which is the last section. And the study that found a lifespan of 70 wouldn't be a MEDRS source anyway as it's primary (and focused on LAM), so how a hypothetical editor would use it on wikipedia is irrelevant. (Oh, and please do review my contributions to stable theory ;)).

If the extent of the problems with Healthline was just the tendency to dumb down material on disease overview articles to the point of ambiguity I wouldn't advocate for its deprecation. Of course I don't believe training in biology corresponds to effective lay medical writing; what I do believe is that a source that claims to provide "medically reviewed" medical information should be held to a higher standard than "psychologist/nurse with zero research background/expertise in anything relevant to the topic reviewing the output of an unqualified freelance health writer". The big issue is wikipedia implicitly endorsing the site as a whole by citing it for mundane statements that could easily be sourced from higher-quality MEDRS by any competent editor. Even if it has some accurate unobjectionable content, HL still contains thousands of articles directly platforming, promoting, or at least failing to criticize CAM nonsense (like natural treatments for Lyme disease, this What are the bet homeopathic treatments for tinnitus? article with the summary Homeopathy for tinnitus is not considered the first line of treatment, and research is mixed on its effectiveness (no, research is NOT "mixed"), or this mind-bogglingly uncritical and falsely-balanced article that presents debates over the safety and efficacy of administering diluted rabid dog saliva to a child (or as its blindingly disinformative search result summary states A homeopathic physician in Canada used saliva from a dog with rabies to treat a boy who was having behavioral problems after contracting rabies himself) as merely a difference in opinion among experts (quoting homeopaths (of course referred to as doctors) and a virologist as if they're on equal footing)). If a news site was spouting this type of shit it would be blacklisted immediately, we should not have a lower standard for MEDRS. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly obvious who I was talking to about blueberries and who about TSC. But sorry if it was confusing. You say "Healthline purports to be a tertiary source". Does it? I can't see that term anywhere on the site or on our Wikipedia article about them. WhatamIdoing can probably comment better on this matter, but in my understanding the PST source categorisation is down to what exactly the writer is doing in those sentences we might cite and not in what JoelleJay or any editor thinks they are. Our examples of what each of these three source categories tend to include are just examples and a given source may be primary for some things and secondary for others. That HealthLine is taking primary research science papers and writing about them when extolling the virtues of blueberries, say, makes them a secondary source for that particular set of facts (dubious or otherwise) and there's nothing you and I can do to say "No, you can't do that, because I say you are a tertiary source".

The "Hierarchy of Evidence" that the guidelines you link don't correspond with Wikipedia's WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or guidelines about generally avoiding primary sources. That there is a hierarchy of evidence quality should of course be considered by any health writer, but their concern is not PST but the accumulation of weight of evidence in a statistically valid way using a scientific method of analysis.

At the top of the pyramid are "Systematic reviews and meta-analyses". These only cover, I don't know, a small percent of medical knowledge. Essentially, does it work, what harm does it do, and maybe when should I use it or avoid it. A meta-analysis might tell you that everolimus shrinks kidney tumours in TSC but won't tell you what percentage of people with TSC get them, why they get them, what they look like on a path slide or ultrasound or MRI scan, what the guidelines are for monitoring them, what the surgical approach is for handling a bleed... A systematic review won't tell you, other than as an aside perhaps, about the two genes involved and how TSC2 is contiguous with PKD1 so some people have faults affecting both. For that kind of information, we need literature reviews, fact sheets, advanced textbooks, etc. And those aren't mentioned in your journalism guidance because they aren't sources of news for a journalist to write about.

In medical writing outside of Wikipedia, there are no banned sources. Nobody wagging WP:SYNTH at you. There is indeed a hierarchy of evidence just as I suppose journalists have their views on whether they are being told political porky pies or reliable facts by their sources. But the point is whether someone is any good at it. The difference between the BMJ's news features covering the latest research findings and HealthLine's news features covering the latest research findings is down to how good their are, their degree of professionalism, and whether and how their readers respond to that quality or lack. They might both cite the same studies/sources. -- Colin°^Talk 09:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

So far, what I've learned from this discussion is that our articles on foods are missing information about serving sizes. A typical serving of blueberries weighs about three times as much as a typical serving of spinach. The 100-gram standardization lets you quickly compare berries against berries, but not berries against leafy greens. One serving of spinach has approximately the same amount of protein and many vitamins (but more fiber, some vitamins, and most minerals, except for Zinc and Phosphorus) as one serving of blueberries. For a healthy person (e.g., not on Coumarin, no iron-deficiency anemia), the real-world effect of eating some blueberries and eating some spinach is not very different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed someone had replaced a Healthline source with a ClevelandClinic source. So I followed that and found them pushing a story What You Should Know About Sugar Alcohols. That article cited several research studies of quite varying quality and size. For example "But a recent study shows that one sugar alcohol, erythritol, may be much worse for your health than anyone realized. It found that erythritol is closely associated with an increased risk for “major adverse cardiovascular events,” including heart attack and stroke." I can't read the whole paper, but just the abstract made me nervous. The Science Media Centre tears it apart. Another Are Spray Tans Safe at the bottom cites this study. Guess where that study sits at the hierarchy of evidence pyramid? I assume some medical editors think that source is fine as it is a big non profit health organisation, rather than just some money making website.

Wrt the Tuberous Sclerosis claim about "most people can expect to have a normal lifespan" your arguments now seem to boil down to a complaint that the section that fully covers the "outlook", mentioning that the disease "vary so greatly in each person, so does long-term outlook", is the "last section" as though putting "outlook" last in the order of sections is a crime worthy of blacklist. And you complain about the one sentence summary of that section being in the lead section (or as you put it "first paragraph of" -- it isn't the first paragraph, but actually the sixth, the very end of the lead). I'm not quite sure how the practice of summarising the body in the lead is also a crime worthy of blacklist.

The point of the 70-year-lifespan source wasn't that I thought a wikipedian should directly cite it, just that there is some evidence that 70-years might be an average. I'll leave citing a secondary source for that fact as an exercise for the reader, not important to our argument. I'm merely saying that we could describe the lifespan of TS in many ways and doing so in one short sentence is unlikely to give a full picture, and could be criticised. But then that's why it pays to read down to the end of the article.

Heathline sure has a lot of problems. But I think editors commenting here need to be very careful that their complaints stack up (e.g. there really wasn't anything wrong with the "normal lifespan" claim, and that's repeated by reliable sources) or that they are being used fairly (e.g. Cleveland Clinic is doing exactly the same thing as Healthline and while it likely isn't as credulous about the latest wellness rubbish, it makes exactly the same journalistic mistakes when citing weak studies and making bold claims). The Cleveland Clinic doesn't even name the "medical professional" who wrote/reviewed the work, so you can't go google them to trash their credentials. -- Colin°^Talk 13:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The Cleveland Clinic is well-known as a pseudoscience apologetic and shouldn't be cited for these claims either. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

well-known as a pseudoscience apologetic, as evidenced by the fact that they fired the guy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do think JJ is right about that particular point (otherwise not wading into this entire back and forth). I think there's quite a few HQRSes whicsh support The Cleveland Clinic is well-known as a pseudoscience apologetic.

E.g. scholarly and otherwise HQRS mentions that Cleveland Clinic has a long history of promoting pseudoscience

Moreover, contrary to what is implied in the SIO's response, reiki and homeopathy are far from irrelevant to the practice of integrative oncology. Reiki, in particular, is offered to cancer patients in many academic medical centres (for example, the Cleveland Clinic)... The Cleveland Clinic, ranked the 2nd best hospital in the United States by U.S. News and World Report in 2017,40 runs multiple CAM centres, including the Wellness Institute, Centre for Integrative Medicine, Centre for Personalized Healthcare, Centre for Functional Medicine, and a Chinese herbal therapy clinic.41 Some of its CAM centres have received significant criticism over the years for having leaders that hold non-evidence-based beliefs that can cause harm to patients. Nevertheless, Reiki treatment, training, and education are now available at many esteemed hospitals in the United States, including Memorial Sloan Kettering, Cleveland Clinic, New York Presbyterian, the Yale Cancer Center, the Mayo Clinic, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Sources

CC is not alone in this, of course. But the overall trend for well-regarded academic medical centers to promote pseudoscience is precisely why we don't prefer such lay-facing sources in WP:MEDRS, as both you and Colin are definitely aware! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The comment above that banning a source prevents us from unintentionally endorsing those sources makes me think the community might have a difference in fundamental values – a different concept of the point behind citing sources.

Given the way that citation metrics are used in career advancement decisions, I understand that some academics are trying to cite only papers that they think are "deserving" (e.g., you cite the paper that already cited the hoax, instead of the hoax paper itself, to avoid boosting the citation impact for the hoax), and in some fields, to promote what's sometimes called citation equity by choosing papers, when you have a choice between reasonably equal options, that aren't from people who are already well up the existing structures of power and privilege (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing/Events/April&May23#Citation equity & justice and https://www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/ask-dr-editor/diversity-in-citation-practices-auditing-your-list-of-references-contributes-to-better-science/ for a little more on this). This has some tangible academic benefits (e.g., if you're writing about fertility, why wouldn't you mention the existence of single mothers, or poor people, or gay people, or teenagers, or child marriage, or religious minorities, or racial minorities, or immigrants, or prisoners, or all the other subgroups? Could it be that you didn't think about that subgroup because that's not part of your own personal background? Maybe if you took an hour to deliberate look for, e.g., what the women of color in your field are writing, you might discover something that would enhance your own work) but also has some non-academic effects (e.g., the authors of the paper you cite might have a slightly higher chance of getting tenure).

In this sense, I think there may be, among scholars, a sense that to cite a paper is, at some level, to endorse it.

On wiki, though, I think that we have traditionally cited sources just because they're convenient. Citing any plausible source (assuming it says the same thing that you put in the article) proves that your contribution is not original research, because even if the source is wrong or unsuitable, you didn't make it up yourself. Our significant bias towards open access sources is driven by practical forces: those are the sources that most editors can actually read. Citing a source isn't endorsing the source; it's just completing a relatively unimportant item on a basic checklist and moving on. After all, "smoking cigarettes raises your risk of lung cancer" is 100% true and WP:Glossary#verifiable regardless of whether the sentence is followed by a good source, a bad source, or no source at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the reliability of Healthline.

Wikipedia deprecates use of publications that routinely provide false or misleading material, even if not every article they put out suffers those issues. HL has a clear history of promoting harmful medical quackery, which is about as bad as you can get source-wise, and offers zero unique coverage that would warrant a whitelist since its articles are written by unqualified freelancers whose subjective interpretations we definitely DON'T want. JoelleJay (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

We may not want it to use it, but I object to claiming that Wikipedia is "endorsing" any source that we cite. We use sources, but we don't endorse them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We aren't endorsing a source by using it. We also are not defaming a source in a legal sense by calling it "unreliable for our purposes". We, as a community, are making no claims wrt whether such sources are useful for other purposes outside of Wikipedia.

I think, in a colloquial sense, one could say that a pass at RSN is the community "endorsing" the source's general use in Wikipedia. But not an endorsement in any other meaning of the word. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I support a blacklist of Healthline. Healthline (which as a Red Ventures company has sister sites Medical News Today, PsychCentral, and Healthgrades) is not reliable. First, many of their articles will reference articles from PubMed Central with the annotation "Highly respected database from the National Institutes of Health". This is misleading because a listing in PubMed or PubMed Central does not indicate that a paper is reliable.

Second, many articles are low quality and "teach the controversy" about pseudoscientific topics. For example, Healthline has a "medically reviewed article "What Is Qi Deficiency, and How Is It Treated?" about a condition that does not exist. There are other articles legitimizing the pseudoscientific concept of Qi like this one "5 Acupressure Points for Gas and Bloating"

Third, Healthline has commercial ties to a number of dubious companies, and refers people to buy their products, sometimes contrary to mainstream medical recommendations. See this one: The 10 Best Vitamin B Complex Supplements, A Dietitian's Picks or their prominent supplement section. Worse, they have run sponsored content like this one: 5 Reasons To Love Integrative Therapeutics or this Here’s How This Next-Generation Probiotic Strain Can Transform Your Gut. There are also commercial links to some dubious at-home testing companies like Everlywell. Some tests, even if technically valid, should not be run without a doctor recommendation and high pre-test probability.

Fourth, many articles seem to have been created for SEO and social media sharing purposes rather than for any legitimate purpose. See examples by searching the site for the word banana.

ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

More on Red Ventures and its priorities: Healthline was purchased by Red Ventures in 2019. To the extent that Healthline may have been reliable prior to the change of management, it is clearly not reliable now. Red Ventures also owns Bankrate, The Points Guy, CNET, Medical News Today, PsychCentral, Lonely Planet, and Healthgrades. After Red Ventures purchased CNET, it was reported that CNET was creating AI-generated content and content that was favorable toward advertisers and affiliates. In a 2021 NY Times article, a former Red Ventures employee said the company is “all about profit maximization.” Further:

The company [Red Ventures] found itself in the publishing business almost by accident, and is now leading a shift in that industry toward what is sometimes called “intent-based media” — a term for specialist sites that attract people who are already looking to spend money in a particular area (travel, tech, health) and guide them to their purchases, while taking a cut.

It’s a step away from the traditional advertising business toward directly selling you stuff. Red Ventures, for instance, plans to steer readers of Healthline to doctors or drugs found on another site it recently acquired, HealthGrades, which rates and refers doctors. Red Ventures will take a healthy commission on each referral.
— New York Times, 2021

ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Compelling information that speaks to how we evaluate reliability. CNET is already red-listed at WP:RSP; it sounds like we should be looking at all of Red Ventures rather than just Healthline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support blacklist. Healthline have been cranking out articles and videos supportive of cholesterol denialism and also publishing dangerous misinformation that saturated fat consumption is not a risk factor for heart disease. They have also published articles supporting alleged benefits of coconut oil which are based on weak evidence [3], the ketogenic diet [4], [5] etc. Not a reliable source for medical claims about health. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support deprecation and blacklist. Another Red Ventures-acquired content mill. Like CNET and so many other Red Ventures properties, chances are quite a lot of this is actually being created by AI now. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support deprecation and blacklist The risk from allowing this source that I see is that it easily hoodwinks unknowing people into trusting its "medical review" and believing it's a reliable source, when it clearly isn't. (t · c) buidhe 00:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. During the discussion, I noticed User:Zefr, who proposed the blacklist, had replaced a HealthLine source with one from ClevelandClinic. When I accused the latter source of some of the editing approach that voters here had criticised HealthLine for, User:JoelleJay appeared to suggest that one should be binned too for being " well-known as a pseudoscience apologetic". Maybe we should ban the Lancet as well for being a well known promoter of fraudulent MMR research. I think the statement above "Wikipedia editors who do not know how to find and recognize high-quality readily-available biomedical sources should not be editing biomedical information in the first place" indicates what's going on here. Elitism. Well Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. What we've got here is a willy waving game by experienced Wikipedians with access to the finest sources who would rather that the great unwashed weren't allowed to edit here and pollute their articles with citations to publications they wouldn't be seen dead reading. I mean, HealthLine and Cleveland are clearly aimed at the general reader, not "experts like us". Finding flaws in others writing is an easy game and but this forum isn't here to boost our egos that we are better than that lot over there. They're the competition and so it seems we mustn't be seen to endorse them.

If folk want a medical encyclopaedia where only experts are allowed to edit, try MDWiki. I don't think Wikipedia should just give editors a bigger hammer with which to hit other (new) editors who haven't reached their level of expertise in policy and enjoy their privileged access to sources. This is not what Wikipedia is about. It is here for anyone to edit, and we live with that. -- Colin°^Talk 11:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right analogy. Lancet and Cleveland Clinic are top-notch at what they do (or at least in other areas of what they do), and make occasional mistakes (as does the NEJM from my typical Jankovic example). Lancet corrected their mistake (the NEJM didn't, but I digress). They aren't reliant on Wikipedia or search engine optimization to push their visibility or reputation or to gain links or clients.

These sources like Red Ventures publications gain traction via links on Wikipedia.

Regarding your concerns of elitism, I don't have journal access unless I travel an hour one-way. These days, there is so much open access publishing, and so many books available at archive.org or via google book excerpts, that I'm not convinced that there is as big of a problem in finding good sources as there was ten years or so ago. Yes, several times a year, I have to ask people if they can email me a journal source, but that's usually because I'm trying to take existing content to a higher level of sourcing (as opposed to the average student or new or casual editor). If a new or casual or student editor is doing a major rewrite or content addition to sources like healthline, the sooner their efforts can be reoriented, the better for all; they learn better sourcing sooner, we don't have to clean up later. I realize (and am frequently reminded that) I'm not a "typical" editor, but then those that are apparently considered "typical" don't seem to stick around for the long haul anyway (eg, Special:Contributions/Sm999). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I stand by my statement that editors who lack the competence to edit medical articles shouldn't be editing medical articles. Part of that competence is understanding MEDRS. With sooo many open access sources, plus the likes of scihub, we don't have any reason to permit poor-quality sources just because they might be the ones hypothetical new editors will use. There is a gigantic difference between "knowing how to use and find MEDRS" and "being a topic expert", so don't act like expecting the former is elitism.

Regarding Cleveland Clinic, several of its centers peddle alt med propaganda.[6][7] JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You are not going to find a medical journal or website dealing with nutrition that is entirely devoid of fringe science or pseudoscience. At some time or another journals make mistakes and publish nonsense, it is all down to quantity (in this case how often they do it). The British Medical Journal has a good tract record but have published a minority of papers supportive of acupuncture and have an editor who promotes vaccine misinformation. This does not mean the journal is unreliable. Cleveland Clinic may have published an article supportive of functional medicine but this doesn't invalidate the website or the good work they do, just like The BMJ is not invalid because they published some stupid papers on acupuncture. 99% of the time they are not doing this. Healthline is different because they are promoting fringe science, pseudoscience and nonsense about nutrition pretty much all of the time, similar to Frontiers Media. I don't think we should compare Healthline to the Lancet, BMJ or Cleveland Clinic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't compare HL to any journals. I'm just saying the Cleveland Clinic panders to alt med junk with its functional medicine centers and therefore is not a good source for anything touching on the fringe stuff it offers. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, the accusation of elitism was specifically at JoelleJay who quite explicitly stated that until editors reach their standard they should not edit at all. That isn't how Wikipedia works. Look, I get it that Healthline is awful for wellness stuff. But I also get that someone adds to our article what the symptoms excess sweating are or whether a drug is legal in the US or some other non-wellness fact, and currently they are having their edits removed or their source removed (making the claim unsourced) with a notice about "Healthline SPAM" which is a bad-faith accusation. When this proposal passes, as it seems to be, presumably they'll be unable to press the Save button or something like that. So, totally unable to edit Wikipedia with a non-contentious fact.

Did this edit improve Wikipedia? The article was unsourced entirely. The citation to Healthline was added six years ago by an editor who is a general practitioner and it appears a highly experienced Wikipedian (on multiple projects). We now again have an article that is entirely unsourced. I clicked on the source that was removed. It has a fantastic 3D diagram of the muscle in the neck that you can rotate about. Are their pages (they appear to have many) on the "Human Body" unreliable. I suspect not. Are their pages on general human body processes and diseases and disorders unreliable. I reckon generally they are not. But we are now going to prevent new editors from improving Wikipedia until they've achieved expert MEDRS status.

When I started on Wikipedia, I was translating a patient information leaflet that was in French into English (with Google Translate) and adding information about a drug that wasn't available anywhere in English. I made lots of mistakes about sourcing. It took me a while to realise you needed to read the whole paper and which kind of paper we wanted. I don't think I'm alone in having that kind of editing path. But the attitude of some here is to attack the newbies for not being perfect. In the fight against wellness nonsense and alternative crap, we end up making this the encyclopaedia only experienced exiting editors can edit, and the encyclopaedia with entirely unsourced random stuff. WP:MED went bad when it forgot to allow people to be imperfect. When having a list (as Zefr has linked to above) with which to go around removing good faith contributions and accusing others of adding "SPAM" to Wikipedia. Remove the wellness shit because it is shit, not because you are concerned with SEO.

Wrt open access, those editors with easy access to paid journals continue to have a huge advantage. But elitism is not just about access. It is about drawing up the ladder once you've made it. About denying a new editor base a chance to get on board. WP:MED went really bad in that regard, praising editors who spent all day bashing newbies. I don't want that mentality to return. Sure, we have a battle against misinformation and promotions of nonsense, but we also have a project that simply does not have enough editors to write and maintain what we have built. -- 09:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC) Colin°^Talk 09:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Look, I get it that Healthline is awful for wellness stuff. But I also get that someone adds to our article what the symptoms excess sweating are or whether a drug is legal in the US or some other non-wellness fact, and currently they are having their edits removed or their source removed (making the claim unsourced) with a notice about "Healthline SPAM" which is a bad-faith accusation.
@Colin, it seems to me this is a good argument for classifying Healthline as "Option 2" or "Option 3", but not blacklisting it. Particularly "additional considerations" option 2. Since it could still be useful for uncontroversial health claims outside of the wellness sphere. And, most of all, that it's use as a MEDRS has a lot more to do with the credentials and reputation of the author rather than HealthLine. Fair? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much all articles on HL are written by freelancers with no expertise in medicine or science at all, let alone the specific subject. Each article is supposedly "medically reviewed", but the HL network of "experts" includes acupuncturists; people with degrees from Bastyr, Walden, Saba, Capella, etc; personal trainers; NPs; physician assistants; RDs; RNs; "holistic nurses"; social workers; yoga teachers; and plenty of people with real doctorates who nevertheless also promote quackery. JoelleJay (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Restricting usage of an, at best, low-quality lay-source is not gatekeeping wikipedia editing, come on. No one has to be a MEDRS expert to find alternative sources for the very basic information someone would be using HL to cite. The "spam blacklist" explicitly encompasses links that were never spammed (some sites which have been added after independent consensus), so a notice saying

Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist. [...] Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia. The following link has triggered a protection filter: healthline.com

is not a "bad-faith accusation" of anything, it's a non-judgmental request to replace the offending link with a better source. JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Em, the bad faith accusation was fairly clearly pointed at Zefr, who proposed this, based on their edit summaries that accuse editors of adding SPAM links. And the "gatekeeping" was about your explicit statement: "Wikipedia editors who do not know how to find and recognize high-quality readily-available biomedical sources should not be editing biomedical information in the first place". If the green text you have above is a correct reproduction of what potential editors will see, have you actually tried clicking on the link about blacklist. It links to Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. For real? They are told Healthline, one of the biggest health sites on the web, is SPAM? Not that it is "low quality" or "peddles wellness nonsense" but that the link they tried to add was SPAM. Is this really what you are proposing? And the second link is to some regexp list that only a nerdy programmer would love. That editor is going to think Wikipedia is nuts. How on earth are they going to get from receiving that message to linking to a better (but still readable) source? They aren't. They've just been told they tried to break the rules, by adding a spam link, and were blocked from doing so.

Wrt Shibollethink comment leading to JoelleJay's attacks on the authors, Well JoelleJay is talking rubbish when we step outside the wellness articles we all agree on. The muscle source was written this chap who seems far more qualified to talk about muscles than well any of us. And the Cleveland Clinic and Drugs.com and NHS and many other lay-friendly websites we aren't blacklisting don't mention their authors at all. What annoys me the most about this discussion is attack-shit about the authors or rubbish about these sources not being allowed to cite primary research and so on. This is nonsense argumentation, like saying anything just to attack something you hate. We can be better than that. There are articles on that site written by people qualified to do so and qualified to cite the research literature. We should separate the wellness rubbish from the other stuff. -- Colin°^Talk 07:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"Fairly clearly addressed to Zefr"...in your response to MY comment, which you start by addressing Sandy...

And I stand by my statement that some bare minimum competence should be expected of editors editing biomedical articles. It is not difficult to find lay material on the basic concepts a non-med-savvy editor would be adding.

The text I quoted is not all the blacklist filter says. It gives way more instructions and information than that, and it doesn't "accuse" the editor of trying to break rules. And obviously I've visited the spam blacklist page, that's the origin of the green text stating that some blocked links are not spam but instead were blacklisted by consensus.

I don't see where the author is listed for the anterior tibiotalar ligament; the byline just says "medically reviewed by the Healthline Medical Network" and "by the Healthline Editorial Team". That doesn't mean it was written or reviewed by any particular person. And it's not only limited to "wellness". JoelleJay (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What gets me is that intelligent folk here are complaining about a site that, in parts, spreads mistruths and exaggerations and such, and in order to attack it, they spread mistruths (the blueberry "meager nutrient content" nonsense) and claim, I don't know, that articles on brain function are being written by herbalists. Two wrongs don't make a right. You focus on the wellness stuff to ridicule them but have failed to land any serious blows on them wrt tuberous sclerosis or neck muscles. And all Zefr has done is demonstrate he doesn't know how to compare the nutritional value of blueberries and spinach. I'm just getting "Boris Johnson vs the EU" vibes, where really any old crap is written to attack something you hate, and it doesn't seem to matter that the crap isn't true or isn't really a proper criticism. Like the idea they can't cite the primary research literature.

I see this sort of thing over the years at MEDRS when folk want to raise the bar really high to win a particular argument they are in (usually against alternative medicine), forgetting that all the other sources they used on another article didn't meet that bar. You know, most of western medical practice is not supported by meta analyses of randomised controlled trials, ... the evidence is missing or lacking. But if you are in a fight, suddenly anything the other guy claims must be supported by meta analyses of randomised controlled trials. The same thing here. Suddenly, it seems, nobody can write an article on the brain unless they are a not only a neurologist or brain surgeon but have published many research papers on that specific issue with the brain. That's not the rule we apply to other sources we accept. For example, you attack their TS article for being reviewed by "a psychologist/nurse with zero research background/expertise in anything relevant to the topic reviewing the output of an unqualified freelance health writer". According to Healthline it was reviewed by "-- ----, PhD, PsyD board-certified as both a geriatric and psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner and is also a licensed psychologist." JoelleJay, perhaps you aren't aware that tuberous sclerosis is a very multi-disciplinary condition, and I'd expect someone with his qualifications to know something about it just as a neurologist or nephrologist or geneticist or so on. It is the most common single-gene cause of ASD and often comes with numerous behavioural issues. One specialist isn't going to know the whole thing. A geneticist wouldn't have made that mistake about genes but then they'd perhaps have screwed up when writing about autistic spectrum. Since when did we demand that the authors of our sources actually published research directly on the topic, as you just did. That's a bar so high it makes me boggle? Have you read any Cochrane reports? Because many that I have read are written by people who may well know how to do a meta analysis, but are not even in that field of medicine, never mind published any research on it. And yet we consider Cochrane reports as one of the best sources.

The discussion here has yet to established that outside of wellness and nutritional claims, and health-news stories, the body of material at Healthline on the human body, and human diseases, is so seriously lacking in reliability that it needs put on a spam blacklist. I would be happy to see it barred in some form for the former stuff. For the latter, no, you really need to do a lot better than that, like finding me an article that shows they don't know their arse from their elbow. -- Colin°^Talk 08:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

An article being certified as "medically reviewed" is a stronger claim than mere authorship, especially when the article itself is written by someone with zero credentials. We should expect expertise in the relevant domain for such a claim. And again, it's not limited to "wellness" topics. This article on the "vaccine debate" uncritically gives the views of antivax loons more space than those of what it calls "vaccine proponents", presenting it as if there are reasoned arguments on both sides.

I also have no idea what you're referring to re: HL pieces on neck muscles (or muscles in general). The only article you linked was a non-bylined one on a completely different tissue. JoelleJay (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Depracate and blacklist per this article: [8]. This article does nothing but push pseudoscientific nonsense. In my opinion, Healthline does not maintain a lot of rigor. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 04:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• We're getting into TL;DR territory here, so I just started querying various topics that could be problematic, following the indications at the top. First test: crystals. Crystals for Sleep says there's no scientific evidence, but spends most of the article interviewing a "modern alchemist" as though they're an expert. Crystals for Manifestation. [...]. Next test: Reiki. How to use Reiki Principles to Boost Well-Being doesn't address the [lack of] science. Next test: GMOs. GMO Apples, Potatoes Hitting Store Shelves appears to serve the primary purpose of casting doubt on the safety of GMO foods. This one isn't too problematic, but does spend a lot of time talking about things that it then says aren't backed up by research (e.g. The main concerns around GMOs involve allergies, cancer, and environmental issues — all of which may affect the consumer. While current research suggests few risks, more long-term research is needed sure makes it sound like there are substantiated concerns). None of this is particularly promising, even if it's not as bad as the worst offenders in this space (Natural News, etc.). The thing is, it's already a site that focuses on biomedical content which fails WP:MEDRS, so the only reason to deprecate/blacklist is if (a) there aren't other uses for it (I haven't seen any), and (b) it's frequently added (that sounds like the case). Support deprecation, no strong opinion about blacklisting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Depracate for sure and likely need blacklist. Pretty plain as day based on the evidence presented here it's more than just not reliable and pushing fringe ideas quite broadly. It's not clear why so much text has been deidcated to such a WP:SNOW case either. Not really much more that needs to be said that hasn't been said already. KoA (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• Deprecate Colins argument that "it publishes good content some of the time, therefore it should't be deprecated" misses the point of why sources are deprecated in the first place. The Daily Mail certaily publishes good content some of the time, but this is heavily outweighed by its other coverage. The same is true here. Red Ventures is a company whos business model is essentially to create voluminous content farms for SEO, rather than to produce carefully written advice by actual medical experts. The stuff brought up by other contributors is shocking, and doesn't appear to be confined to wellness. This source should really not be used for any reason. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• Deprecate and blacklist: In my time reviewing RfC:Reliability of La Patilla beside this section and making some comparisons, it is apparent that Healthline does not exist to provide accurate information and instead may promote dubious medical information in a method that targets readers searching topics, expanding upon topics that may or may not be scientifically valid. Reviewing WP:MEDASSESS, Healthline content can be described as "expert opinion" at best, though with its questionable review process and the use of advertisements, etc., this raises even more concerns. Given the prominence and potential of Healthline being used on the project, a blacklisting is appropriate to prevent not only the placement of unreliable information, but to also deter future discussions which will continue to arise when users attempt to cite Healthline.--WMrapids (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Is FossForce.com a reliable source for Free and open-source software (FOSS) articles?

Is FossForce.com a reliable source for Free and open-source software (FOSS) articles?

1. Generally reliable
2. Additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable

With these edits at Libreboot, PhotographyEdits removed cited info, claiming FossForce.com (and others) is not a WP:RS: one, two, and 2021 article purge and proposal to merge

Prevous RSN discussions: None found.

Talk discussions : one found in 2019; thin consensus, including me, was not reliable. Newslinger called it a "group blogs with no reputations".

An author "Christine Hall" is cited on a few editor talk pages, but I don't think it is the same Christine Hall.

About a dozen articles cite FossForce.com.

Three cites that have been removed from Libreboot over time include:

• September 2016
• January 2017
• April 2017

• Option 2: Additional considerations apply: While the articles are mostly by one author/editor, I contrast FossForce.com with somewhat similar (at a glance) liliputing.com, which was deemed generally unreliable blog, self-published source in this RSN discussion and RfC. FossForce, to me, covers FOSS topics with more insight than just re-publicizing a single press release or vendor post, and discusses the info in some detail. FossForce also covers FOSS topics - not just new products up for sale - over time, as shown by the three cites above. While the FossForce website does show advertisements, it again contrasts with Liliputing by NOT being affiliate-spam directly connected to PR announcements about products being written about. Therefore, I feel this otherwise marginal source should be allowed, particularly for FOSS articles with few generally reliable sources.

The present intention is to use the 2017 cites to support statements about the History of Libreboot without the personal WP:BLP info. They have been used differently at Libreboot previously. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option #1 (invited by the bot) My actual answer is that I generally reject all such over-generalizations.....it should be about the objectivity and objectivity of the particular piece/authot/source with respect to the text which cited it. But if forced to make a generalization, that source looks to be good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Summoned by the notification at WT:COMPUTING. Yae4, I again respectfully disagree with going straight from a one-on-one content dispute to an RSN RfC, without discussion on the article's talk page (WP:RFCBEFORE). At Libreboot, PhotographyEdits removed text cited to two sources, and you reverted it, agreeing they're not WP:GENREL, but arguing they should stay because they weren't discussed at RSN and are widely used at Wikipedia (FossForce is cited in 13 articles), and asking PhotographyEdits to point to a consensus discussion before removing.

But Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. No one needs a consensus discussion, or an RSN RfC, to remove citations that they deem unreliable from an article. If you disagree with a removal, that should first be discussed on the article's talk page; if that doesn't solve it, you can start a non-RfC discussion here to ask for input on whether the source is good enough for the claim. RSN RfCs are for repeated disputes across several talk pages, or sources in widespread use, not to resolve mundant content disputes. BTW, I searched, and FossForce is only used in five articles (ItsFoss, the second source, is used in 2 articles).

When a specific statement is challenged, the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus on the article's talk page to keep it. Skipping directly to an RfC here implies inclusion is all-or-nothing, where an outcome other than "generally unreliable" would mean the claim stays in the article. This is undesirable from a process standpoint. Best, DFlhb (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC) updated 02:32, 14 June 2023

@DFlhb:

> (FossForce is cited in 13 articles)

> I searched, and FossForce is only used in five articles

I agree with 13, based on my Wiki-search linked above. I disagree with 5, but what's a factor of 2 to 3 difference?

I considered discussing this and doing an RfC at Talk:Libreboot. IMO, having it here makes it more likely to get uninvolved opinions, from editors with broader perspective, makes it easier to find later, and may carry more weight later. I think the small proportion of FOSS-related articles to all Wikipedia articles needs to be considered, relative to "widely used". There are also related issues at Libreboot, particularly how to handle the "fork", what sources are primary or secondary, etc., and I'm hoping some editors with broader perspective may notice and have suggestions. Thanks for your comments. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

13 indeed; I fixed the first mention (see my edit summary), forgot to fix the second mention. DFlhb (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

At VeraCrypt, A cite to Fossforce is used to support the claim "VeraCrypt is considered to be free and open source by [...] DuckDuckGo's Open Source Technology Improvement Fund".[9]

OSTIF does consider Veracrypt to be open source[10] and DuckDuckGo did make a $25,000 contribution to the OSTIF with the funds earmarked for the VeraCrypt project,[11] but it appears that the "DuckDuckGo's" claim is an error that is not in the FossForce source. Could someone please change the claim to "VeraCrypt is considered to be free and open source by [...] The Open Source Technology Improvement Fund" and change the cite from Fossforce to OSTIF? OSTIF Cite:[12] I don't edit articles for reasons I won't get into here. Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Guy_Macon, I'd consider making the change for you if someone hasn't already, if you give a more direct opinion on the question at hand. Thanks. PS. Now and then I look at your User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer, and find it useful. Sadly, User:Guy_Macon/Yes._We_are_biased. looks good on the surface, but is it really accurate? (rhetorical). Cheers. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Option 1. In my opinion, Fossforce is a reliable source on the topis of free and open source software, an area where there are few good sources. I am also concerned about the possibility that this RfC was not posted because of a genuine question about Fossforce's reliability, but rather to win a content dispute that should have been worked out on the article talk page. I would encourage those who are involved in the dispute to ignore the result of this RfC and work it out through consensus and if necessary through a focused RfC on the talk page comparing the preferred content of both sides.

Regarding WP:YWAB, the purpose is not "accuracy". Any "we are biased against" / "we are biased towards" list is by nature subjecticve opinion. The purpose of the page is explained at User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.#The purpose of this essay, and it is quite effective for that purpose. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

More Perfect

Hi, I'm commenting to see what others think about the reliability of More Perfect Union (particularly within labor). I'm looking for input from others who are well versed in labor issues. LoomCreek (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks no more nor less reliable than any other newsmedia source. I don't think Wikipedia should use newsmedia sources at all but so long as Wikipedia uses NYT I see no reason why this one should be excluded. At least it's honest about its biases. That's more than most of these news outlets do. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) @LoomCreek: You'll probably have more luck asking "is More Perfect Union reliable for [some kind of claim] in [one or a category of articles]". It's hard to offer a judgment on the whole without specific examples. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

More Perfect Union appears to be a joint venture between a 501(c)(4) political organization, and a 501(c)(3) that it controls. It is led by a political operative and a former NowThis/HuffPo person, which isn't exactly the sort of sterling editorial credentials that one would expect for a reliable news group. I'm unsure of whether it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but it seems more like an advocacy org than a newsorg based off what I can find. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Use of words of high-ranking clergy on personal website

A question regarding the use of experts, in this case a high-ranking Bishop of the Catholic Church, to reference their own words in an unpublished article they wrote that appeared on their personal website. For example, can I say, "According to Bishop Roman Danylak, ..." and reference the article on his website?

I know that generally personal websites are not RS, however this is the personal website of a high-ranking member of the clergy explicitly specifying it is the personal website of Bishop Roman Danylak and the content is written by him. This archived article for example: [13] Arkenstrone (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

SPS by an acknowledged expert (on the subject) are acceptable, as long as they are attributed. Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that Roman Danylak is an acknowledged expert on any relevant subject in the way Wikipedia understands it, though. Being a bishop is not evidence of expertise. The fact that Danylak believed that Maria Valtorta's poetry was dictated to her by Jesus rather disqualifies him from being considered a reliable source, I would suggest! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, he was Bishop of Toronto, and appointed titular bishop of Nyssa by Pope John Paul II, and also canon of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, a very high-ranking position in the Church, which few attain. Not to mention receiving a doctorate of canon and civil law. Looks to be someone of high qualifications and expertise. Surely he would be considered an expert on Church doctrine and matters of canon law?

Another way to look at it is, the fact that he was an expert on Church doctrine and matters of canon law, and became a supporter of Maria Valtorta's works, suggests that there is nothing contrary to Church doctrine, faith and morals in those works. In other words, instead of de-legitimizing him, it legitimizes the works in question. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has guidelines on what makes someone an expert: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. If he has a PhD in canon law and has published articles on canon law in reliable sources, he may be an expert SPS when it comes to canon law. I can't find any evidence that he does have such a record of publication, but he at least has relevant training so it's conceivable.

If he has a record of reliable-source publications on Maria Valtorta's poetry, then maybe he's a reliable source re. Maria Valtorta. I can find absolutely no evidence that this is the case. Nor can I find any reason to think that he has such a record that I have missed. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you trying to prove that "there is nothing contrary to Church doctrine, faith and morals in those works."? See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not actually trying to prove anything, those are his own words. Just making the point that, given his qualifications, it is highly unlikely that he is not an expert in matters pertaining to canon law (doctoral thesis) and Church doctrine (Bishop of Toronto/Nyssa). Therefore, he is well-suited to weigh in on matters including works that may or may not be in accordance with Church doctrine, faith and morals. Arkenstrone (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a catch-22 in situations like this. If the whatever is only found in WP:SPS, it's often easy to argue it fails WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest to avoid the old website of a no longer living bishop on a subject that is highly controversial. It will add nothing to Wikipedia, except contention, edit wars and negative feelings. It is better to get solid WP:RS sources than to go grave digging on old websites on controversial matters. It is best to avoid these types of outdated, questionable websites on controversial issues. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Key question: why is there a quest to dig up and add the old Danylak items to Wikipedia? They are exaggerated statements anyway, compared to the mainstream. This reminds me of an episode of David Letterman 15-20 years ago when some political party could not find a presidential candidate. The top 10 Letterman list ended with "We will just dig up Grover Cleveland and run him again". There is no point in digging up old Danylak items of questionable quality and adding them to Wikipedia. There have been multiple attempts at doing so, and they need to stop. We should use WP:RS sources, not old personal websites. Let the Danylak nightmare end here, please. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Presumably for the same reason that the rest of the article The Poem of the Man-God looks as it does. I can only assume that it's due to the influence of editors who are more concerned with presenting Valtorta's poetry as truly divinely inspired than ensuring the use of high-quality reliable sources for contentious claims. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto, you can not guess the exaggerations that are to come next month, if that extreme fascination with Danylak does not end. That article is a very controversial topic and using "inuendo" to suggest that the Catholic Church approves it as orthodox and all scientists agree that it is supernatural is of course daydreaming. I have started a new section on this noticeboard on "yet another path" being used to get Danylak into that article via a book by J.F. Lavere. I would not use the word "fetish" about this fascination with getting Danylak into Wikipedia, but the interest is extreme, for sure. Danylak's old website quotes can not be declared reliable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Filmcompanion.in (2)

Filmcompanion.in was added to the spam blacklist in Nov 2021 because IP spammers were adding links to it indiscriminately. Discussions at WP:ICTF (Apr 2023, Oct 2021, Nov 2020, Aug 2019) and elsewhere (Nov 2022), among experienced editors working in the relevant topic area (Indian cinema), suggest that the spamming campaign aside, the site may be a good-quality resource. Therefore, it has been proposed that the spam blacklist entry, which disallows all links to the website, be replaced by an edit-filter that disallows (say) only non-extended confirmed editors from adding links to it. This would hopefully prevent the spamming, while enabling citing of articles on the website on a case-by-case basis.

The question for this board, arising from discussion at EFN, is whether there are indeed any legitimate uses of Filmcompanion articles as a source that would justify such an approach? Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Super quick reply. As noted, there was a spam campaign for FC in 2021. The links included parameters like "utm_source=Wikipedia&utm_medium=ReviewSeeding". This wasn't just IP's adding links. This was an organized and orchestrated spam campaign from FC (or from a company hired by FC). This was a pure attempt to use Wikipedia to promote the site. That's a negative and a big one. FilmCompanion was started by Anupama Chopra. Just going by her article here, she's a respected film critic, having reviewed films for several newspapers in the past, has several books on Indian films and had a weekly television show reviewing films. The website doesn't have any information about editorial staff, but Chopra's page on FC(www.filmcompanion. in/author/anupama-chopra) lists her as editor. So positives there. There is at least one section of FC that should never have anything on Wikipedia - Readers Write. Pretty self-explanatory there. I think there absolutely is some good content on the site, especially film reviews. You do see their reviews mentioned by other sources, also a plus. This may be a site where some parts of the site should be permitted, but not everything? Ravensfire (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

What appears to be the case here is that there is a reliable source that also has a spam problem. The proposed solution (removing it from the spam blacklist and implementing an abuse filter to restrict this source to autoconfirmed editors only) seems to be a more narrowly tailored way to deal with this problem than an outright blacklist. If this does not work, then we can always return to the spam blacklist (or implement a 30/500 restriction through abuse filter), but I don't think we'll come to that point. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The abuse filter option may be ideal. Preventing IPs and unconfirmed users from adding FC, but letting long-time and honest editors add it. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Seeing that in the past the spam-blacklist has been used to prevent citing even when there's no current spam, and worrying that in the future the no-whitelist New special page to fight spam might be used, I'm hoping that anything rather than a spam-blacklist would become normal for anything brought to WP:RSN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Consensus here seems to be tending towards raising an edit filter and to remove the site from the blacklist. I would request clarity on two points:

1. Should Anupama Chopra's reviews and articles in her own owned movie media channel (filmcompanion) be considered reliable, given that there expectably would be no peer review -- and given that she is the Director of the Mumbai Film Festival, as well as her having a evident conflict of interest (being married to a leading film producer, whose films she has admitted to not reviewing, due to a self-accepted conflict of interest)? (Reiterating -- her articles in other media channels presumably undergo peer review, therefore are acceptable, given her long-standing status as a film journalist).
2. Which parts of filmcompanion should be generally trusted as reliable and which not?

A consensus on these points will allow future article talk page discussions to have direction on the scope of acceptance of this source. Thank you, Lourdes 11:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

By policy, filmcompanion does not review her husband's productions, last I checked. 2001:8F8:172B:41ED:2D5E:DC11:DD06:64BE (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep, proven here. And Lourdes, the entire FC should be trusted as reliable, except for articles written by guests or unnotables like this. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

O'Keefe Media Group and Project Veritas

Now that James O'Keefe has split from Project Veritas and is continuing his stings under O'Keefe Media Group, should the entry on the RS list be updated to include O'Keefe Media Group [14] underneath Veritas's entry? I reverted an IP edit that attempted to cite his website as a source for a BlackRock sting [15] but was wondering if this needs to be mentioned as it would seem unlikely that O'Keefe has changed his journalistic practices since leaving Veritas. Mfko (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Unreliable. A new entry at RS is probably appropriate. Woodroar (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. No corrections policy that I can see. Tone is not that of an RS. No reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. Couldn't find any WP:USEBYOTHERS either. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm surprised he's not deprecated as a matter of course; setting up an RfC below to correct that. Sceptre (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC (James O'Keefe)

What best describes James O'Keefe (including, inter alia, Project Veritas and O'Keefe Media Group) as a reliable source?

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

Sceptre (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (James O'Keefe)

• Option 4, and blacklisted where possible: this should be pro forma, but I think we need an RfC to formally deprecate a source, no matter if such a course of action is blindingly obvious. Since the death of Andrew Breitbart, O'Keefe is the undisputed King of Fake News. Anything he touches is fruit of the poisoned tree. However, the entry at RSPS where we've said it's GUNREL is, I feel, too high; if I met O'Keefe in the middle of the Sahara and he told me it was scorchingly sunny, I'd make sure I had an umbrella and a parka on my person just in case; he's that much of a bullshit merchant. Sceptre (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 Back to basics. No reputation for fact checking or accuracy. Stories do not have the measured tone that is typical reliable source, and as mentioned elsewhere on this page, his latest outlet lacks a corrections policy. I'm unaware of any spam campaign from O'Keefe, which would be the usual reason for blacklisting. I don't see colorful prose such as "undisputed King of Fake News" as sufficient reason for deprecation. Ditto selective editing, as every source edits, and every source is selective. So just plain not reliable. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 with a caveat Obviously generally unreliable but I'm wary of adding an individual to the RSP list as this seems to stretch its purpose beyond what's appropriate. And until his new publishing venture is actually getting used or asked about here a lot, it is premature to call it "perennial". BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, and nuke any references from orbit, as it is the only way to be sure While it is true that Mr. O'Keefe and his former workplace Project Veritas are not legally identical, they are in many ways synonymous and there can be little doubt that he was the animating spirit for at least much of the time he was there. I don't believe his reputation should be laundered by starting a new venture. Not only does Mr. O'Keefe not have a track record for fact-checking and accuracy, he has one of using underhanded and sometimes tortious or even criminal tactics to get information. He then explicitly uses such information in the style of a provacateur, going well beyond reporting bias into naked propaganda. Perhaps Mr. O'Keefe's new venture will be different--anything is possible. If it is, we can reassess in due time. But for now, I can see no good and quite a bit of bad from citing him anywhere on Wikipedia. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 - The truth value of anything he writes is basically unrelated to reality. Veritas is known to be entirely fake, and the reason for that is primarily due to O'Keefe. Use of his works as a reference is pretty much equivalent to not having a reference at all. The only time I could see it appropriate to cite him is as a primary source for what he himself has published, and even then I wouldn't even trust him as a source for what he himself has previously said, as he could decide to change his mind about the facts regarding himself at any time. Fieari (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 As not only does he (or PV) not have a reputation for fact-checking, they actually have a reputation for faslefication. Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 and blacklist/purge everything from it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4. I wouldn't even trust any ABOUTSELF claims, as they'd probably be edited out of context. Woodroar (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Nothing coming directly or indirectly from James O'Keefe, or from anyone who chooses to be associated with him, should be given any credence whatsoever. Nevertheless, I would characterize the deprecation as being of Project Veritas and O'Keefe Media Group, rather than James O'Keefe personally. John M Baker (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, but honestly on a scale to 1-4 this person is at 9000. An agent provocateur and purveyor of disinformation should never be cited for anything in the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 Andre🚐 00:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 Not even a close question. Deliberate serial fabrication and falsehoods. Blacklist. Banks Irk (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Academic book reviews

At Talk:Alessandro_Orsini_(sociologist), User:TrangaBellam expresses the view that the authors of the following book reviews may not be sufficiently knowledgeable to have their reviews cited and quoted in the Wikipedia article about Alessandro Orsini (sociologist). Views on each?

Jeffrey Herf

• Jeffrey Herf, "Reviewed Work: Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists by Alessandro Orsini, Sarah J. Nodes", Journal of Cold War Studies, MIT Press.

Lawrence D. Freedman

• Lawrence D. Freedman: "Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-set of Modern Terrorists; Mastermind: The Many Faces of the 9/11 Architect, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed", Foreign Affairs, Council on Foreign Relations.

Paul J. Smith

• Paul J. Smith: "Reviewed Work: Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists by Alessandro Orsini", Perspectives on Politics, Cambridge University Press.

Others

I would also be interested in editors' views on the following reviews that similar objections might be raised against:

• John R. Hall: "Reviewed Work: Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists by Alessandro Orsini", Contemporary Sociology, American Sociological Association.
• Tobias Hof: "Alessandro Orsini, Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2011), 317 pp.", Cold War History, Routledge.

I would also be grateful if interested editors could review the paraphrases presented in this section and compare them to the underlying quotes. Thanks, Andreas JN466 16:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - We have ten reviews by specialist scholars, who have some kind of expertise in the topics covered by the book. So, we need not scrape the barrel by adding capsule-reviews from Foreign Policy. Additionally, neither Lawrence D. Freedman nor Paul J. Smith has any subject expertise to make their reviews worth DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody has questioned Tobias Hof's or Jeffrey Herf's creds or suggested that their reviews be kept out; so, I don't know why their reviews have been selected by Andreas. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  I thought from this edit yesterday that you intended to question Herf's credentials as well.

  As for Hof, you're right; he's cited in the article. Though I don't agree with the summary I found in the article. It seemed to take considerable liberties with what Hof actually wrote (Wikipedia library link for reference). Andreas JN466 18:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Last I checked, RSN is not the place to dispute or even discuss whether content has been fairly summarized or passes WP:INTEGRITY. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Lawrence Freedman: "Terrorism as a Strategy", Government and Opposition, Cambridge University Press.
  • Paul J. Smith contributed a chapter on the precise same topic Orsini's book is about to Armed groups : studies in national security, counterterrorism, and counterinsurgency, published by the U.S. government (U.S. Naval War College). (H/T to WO member eppur si muove.)

  Andreas JN466 18:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  You appear to believe that anybody who works on terrorism — from al-Qaeda to revolutionary terrorists of colonial Bengal to the Italian far-left — is adept to review each other's works? Wow. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  If a peer-reviewed journal like Perspectives on Politics, or a journal like Foreign Affairs, decides to publish their review, then why should Wikipedia ask TrangaBellam's opinion about the author's qualifications before including a summary of the review?

  What makes TrangaBellam more qualified than these publications' editorial boards and reviewers, who decided to publish the reviews for their readership?

  The journals, their publishers, and their authors are known quantities, with international reputations. TrangaBellam is not. Andreas JN466 21:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  For precedence, see the protracted discussions at this t/p thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Another useful source might be 'Comments on Marc Sageman's Polemic "The Stagnation in Terrorism Research"' by Alex P. Schmid. Not a review as such, but he mentions that "More researchers, and more good researchers, have joined the field in the last decade and the results begin to show in excellent works like Alessandro Orsini's Anatomy of the Red Brigades (2011). Andreas JN466 19:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not the article t/p, where you suggest sources for generic improvement. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said on the t/p, given his subject expertise, the Paul J. Smith review should be included as it is the best expository (i.e. non-polemical) review of what is contained in each chapter. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I do not oppose inclusion of Paul Smith. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• This is a strange thread. All these reviews were published in scholarly journals, several of them being among the leading journals in the field. The journals' editors considered that the authors of the reviews had relevant expertise when they commissioned or accepted the reviews, and it would be bizarre for Wikipedia editors to seek to dismiss this. They are all excellent sources. Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs is a trade magazine (though of renown); not a journal. As our article makes clear, they have resident-reviewers for regions; reviews are never commissioned. Besides, the review in question is a one-paragraph-long "capsule-review". When we have 10 detailed reviews — some of which run for five to six pages — in the article from high quality peer reviewed journals by academics with specific expertise in the topic area, why scrape the barrel? DUE etc.TrangaBellam (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Reviews in Foreign Affairs are definetly not scraping the barrel. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Nick for your comment. Everyone else who has commented so far (including me) has come here from the article. It would be good to have more comments from people who are new to the and situation can comment on the reliability of the sources without the possibility of their comments being influenced by the content of the reviews. Dronkle (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Book reviews typically are citable as opinion, unless information from the review is being used for factual statements. It is not clear, therefore, that the question really is one for this noticeboard. It sounds like the dispute is over whether citation to these sources is due, and we cannot help you there. John M Baker (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

choicely.com

• Miss Universe Iceland 2020 [16]
• Elísabet Hulda Snorradóttir [17]
• Miss Supranational 2023 [18]

choicely.com looks like some kind of crowdsourced vote-tally system, I'm not sure exactly what it's doing. Homepage says "Powerful apps, built without coding" suggesting it's a Weebly-style self-publishing host.

The site is used at the articles noted above, all are beauty pageant-related. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't look like an RS to me. Moreover, the dead links above are not in the Wayback Machine, so Wikipedia is better off without them. It looks like there is little to no content that is exclusively cited to this website anyway. Andreas JN466 12:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The reliability of the book Enigma Valtorta

I would like to start a discussion on the reliability of the book "L'énigme Valtorta : Une vie de Jésus romancée?" by J. F. Lavere, published in 2012 [19]. This is due to the use of several quotes from this book on Poem of the Man God article. I have tagged these quotes as "unreliable". The book'a level of support for the extraordinary features of Valtorta's writings is extreme and exaggerated.

Here, I would like to state that this book is not WP:RS on scientific or theological matters, given the author's lack of track record on the subject.

There are a few issues:

1. The back cover of the book states that J. F. Lavere is a retired engineer in France. I have read elsewhere that he was a chemical engineer, but let us just assume that he was just some type of engineer. Did he publish any books on engineering? Not that Amazon knows about. [20] In fact this was his frst book ever for all we know. He wrote other things later, but here he was fresh from the engineering field and his lack of experience is obvious.

2. Would J. F. Lavere be even a WP:RS source on some type of engineering? Obviously not, gven that he has no track record we know of. So he is certainly not an authority on theology. But he is being used as such. That must stop.

3. His book is quite open about the fact that many items he quotes come from web sites and blogs. For instance, he mentions quotes from Roman Danylak and bases them directly on Danylak's personal website. That issue is currently being debated on this noticeboard. And there seems to be no support for the reliability of that.

4. The book includes unsourced and clearly contradictory statements are being quoted in Wikipedia, e.g.

"In January 1962, Fr. Berti was given an authorization to publish by the Vice Commissioner of the Holy See, Father Marco Giraudo: “You have our[who?] total approbation to continue the publication of this second edition of The Gospel as revealed to me by Maria Valtorta," concluding with, "We shall see how it is received."

It is absolutely impossible for Giraudo to have written that, given that in the book Lettera a Claudia, the publisher Emilio Pisani states that the title "The Gospel as revealed to me" was invented in the 1970's with the publication of the French translation. TThe title did not exist in 1962, and Lavere gives no indication of where ho obtained that quote. But the quote is floating on all kinds of blogs. There are other obvious errors exaggerations in that book, too many to discuss, but it is largely a claim of exceptional origin for the writings of Valtorta, sprinkled with exaggerated theological claims.

5. In that book Lavere has walked out of the enginerring world and has commented on topics such as botany where he has no expertise. The book can not be considered reliable, unless it includes the chemical formula for a new shampoo. Lavere would probably know about that, but not the topics in this book.

The real problem is that unless this book is declared as unreliable, 30 more incorrect and exaggerated claims from it may be added to Wikipedia. This must stop. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Collapse trolling. IP blocked (for edits here and elsewhere). Abecedare (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is you are using your original research to determine whether the book is reliable or not. You should provide a secondary source such as a review essay to determine the reliability. 95.12.119.26 (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) That's not really the case, IP user. We can make judgments on reliability of sources based on other factors than reviews from experts. Of course, those help, but it's not the be all and end all.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC) @Boynamedsue No, you can't. That's an explicit violation of WP:OR. If you don't understand this, you should read WP:COMPETENCE. 95.12.119.26 (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) IP 95.12.119.26, there is no WP:OR in saying this was the author's first book, and that he has no track record. If you have a list of his previous publications, please present them. If he was a professor anywhere, please say where. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC) @Yesterday, all my dreams... Do you have a secondary source documenting this is his first book? If you do have, make sure it is not from Rodong Sinmun; only reliable sources are allowed. 95.12.119.26 (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC) WP:OR is a restriction specifically and solely on article content. It is not a restriction on editing discussions such as this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC) IP 95.12.119.26, the easiest way is to look at Amazon (I provided a link already) or worldcat, etc. See what he has published. You will see 2012 was the first date. That is easy. I will stop for a while based on the suggestion of Abecedare. But per WP:BURDEN more burden is placed on those who claim reliability. So please say why that is not his first book, and show which books he published before 2011. You will not succeed. I am sure. I have checked. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC) IP 95.12.119.26, as stated below 90% of my argument was based on the lack of track record of the author. As for the statement by Giraudo I used the reference to the book Lettera a Claudia which contradicts the statement by Lavere. As for his use of blogs and personal websites, they are all over his book. It is not WP:OR by me, he states that he used those websites as his sources. Lavere does not directly say that "God personally told him" that Valtorta's book is divine, but if you read the book you will get that feeling. So I do invite you to read Lavere's book. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC) IP, per WP:OR: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Yesterday, you don't need to reply to each comment, especially to reiterate arguments you have already made. Abecedare (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC) @Abecedare @NatGertler That statement did not exist there before. It was stealth added in May 2023 by an old sleeping account, who is now blocked indefinitely. 95.12.119.26 (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Your interpretation that WP:OR applies to talk pages and arguments over reliability is not a majority position anywhere on wikipedia. I'm not even sure if it is a minority position of more than one. What I do know is that suggesting a user lacks competence to edit is not just an insane escalation at this point, but it a violation WP:NPA. I will take this to WP:ANI if I see you do it again.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC) @Boynamedsue Baseless accusation of PA is a personal attack. Please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Thank you. 95.12.119.26 (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Ok, so would you like to confirm that when you advised me to read WP:COMPETENCE, you were not suggesting that I lacked competence? Because it read like that, and I find it hard to think of another interpretation of your comment. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, shall we try with the basics on this, we can look at the publisher and the type of stuff they normally publish, as well as the other published work of Levere. Do you know of any other publications by Levere? What is the publisher of this book? Boynamedsue (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, the publisher is a French publisher Rassemblement À Son Image [21] mostly a religious publisher. But 90% of my argument was based on the "author's lack of track record". This was his first book as seen here [22]. He may have learned a few things 5-7 years later, but in 2012 he was fresh from the engineering workshop. He has only ever published on one topic: Maria Valtorta. He wrote a few things later as shown in the link, but he had published nothing before this book. And no PhD, no professor, etc. And wondering off to discuss topics from botany to theology does not make that reliable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this is a lot easier than I thought. The publishing house generally publishes books on Catholic spirituality which reflect the opinions of the authors. It also publishes a lot of reprints of out of copyright religious books. I see no evidence of editorial oversight at a sufficient level that controversial facts can be supported, although it is obviously good for the author's opinion. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, not an acceptable source for statements of fact but could be used for the author's opinion if due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

So sourcing material from books of this kind is acceptable provided it is presented not as fact, but as the authors opinion. Understood.

For greater clarity, this particular author, Lavere, has published with other authors, including Laurentin, and Debrois, in the same year (2012) which are also considered reliable sources. For example: Dictionnaire des personnages de l'évangile selon Maria Valtorta.[23]

It would seem somewhat strange to say that the author Lavere, is unreliable in once instance and reliable in another, especially when dealing with material that is closely related (generally to do with Valtorta's work) and published in the same year.

Further, the book in question includes a preface by the Bishop Johanan-Mariam Cazenave’s, the Secretary of the Syrian-French Synod, so it's not without some level of high-ranking ecclesiastical support. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

What does ecclesiastical support have to do with reliability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Peer review as in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Since we're not dealing with a work of physics here, but rather a work concerning religious matters, and specifically, religious matters pertaining to the Catholic Church, experts constitute high-ranking or respected members of the Catholic Church. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No, experts constitute those with relevant academic expertise and publishing histories, many of whom are high-ranking or respected members of the Catholic Church. I'd also note that we're dealing with a matter of *history* here first and foremost. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Experts are domain-specific. Academics in physics, chemistry, or biology are concerned with empirical data, and while they are highly relevant in their specific fields of inquiry, they are generally irrelevant in matters of religious doctrine and faith (unless, for example, they are doing a carbon dating of a religious artifact, or doing mathematical or statistical analyses of some kind).

Church history is part of it, but not exclusively. It is also a matter of Church doctrine, and what is and is not contrary to Church doctrine, faith and morals, which requires experts in that domain, i.e., high-ranking or respected members of the Church who can weigh in on such matters. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Think of it this way: what would it do to a published work in physics, if the preface to that work was written by Richard Feynman, Neils Bohr, or even Einstein, praising the work? Same principle. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Is Johanan-Mariam Cazenave a renowned figure on the level of Feynman, Bohr, Einstein, etc? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact he's a Bishop means he's sufficiently high-ranking and knowledgeable to be able to weigh in on such matters. In any case, I said "same principle." I wasn't making an equivalence. Arkenstrone (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Lets start here... Who is Bishop Johanan-Mariam Cazenave? What is the Syrian-French Synod? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Arkenstone, I did have a good laugh at your reference to Richard Feynman, Neils Bohr and Einstein. But Johanan-Mariam Cazenave is no Einstein. And given that Lavere makes a large number of fantastic scientific claims across multiple fields in his book, Cazenave (as a theolog) was in no pisition to evaluate them. It woud be like a physicist trying to evaluate a book on dentistry - he would not even know what types of drills the dentists use. So the argument about Cazenave is vacuous. And recall that the fact that the publisher has no serious editorial oversight on these issues, renders the whole argument pointless. Please accept that this is a book by a publisher with no serious oversight on scientific or historical issues, and an author (Lavere) who directly references blogs and personal websites as his sources. This is not a WP:RS item. And recall the inherent asymetry in WP:BURDEN. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Is Cazenave a theologian? I'm having a hard time tracking down a Catholic Bishop of that name. Perhaps its a pseudonym or pen name? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

<Sigh> I said, "same principle." And I repeat, it wasn't an equivalence.

Care to elaborate on "fantastic scientific claims" since you brought it up (on the Poem talk page please, not here)? This work isn't being used in the article to support scientific claims, so why are you focusing attention on that?

You are far too harsh on Lavere, especially considering the fact that he co-authored other works with Laurentin and Debroise, whom you seem to hold in high-regard. Though not relevant to this discussion, many of the scientific claims that are made in Lavere's book, are made elsewhere in other books or publications, by experts in those fields, which we will get to in due course (and you know it). So, "fantastic" would seem quite the exaggeration.

Perhaps Bishop Cazenave's praise and commendation is "vacuous" as it relates to scientific claims, but that's not what we're concerned with here. So please, let's stop conflating things.

Bishop Cazenave can weigh in on issues concerned with Church doctrine, and what is and is not contrary to Church doctrine, faith and morals. For those issues, his praise and commendation is pertinent and certainly not vacuous.

In any case, this discussion is getting longer than need be, drifting into tangential issues. Lavere's book can be used for his statements and opinions, but not for controversial facts. So long as statements and opinions are not presented as facts, we should be alright. Arkenstrone (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

CamerounWeb

Would this source be reliable for a BLP article? [24] Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparently a news site which has partnered with BBC world service. They also publish their editorial policy which includes a corrections policy. I've no experience with them, but based on that I would expect that it's broadly reliable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of La Patilla

What is the reliability of La Patilla?

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

WMrapids (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

---

 Comment: A previous discussion was raised regarding the reliability of La Patilla. In the discussion, concerns about the reliability of La Patilla included its reposting of deprecated and blacklisted sources (including Stop the Steal, anti-immigrant articles and frequent opinion articles from WP:BREITBART, WP:EPOCHTIMES, WP:ZEROHEDGE, WP:IBTIMES and others), its heavy bias and its leadership working directly on behalf of Juan Guaidó (one user describing the outlet as "propaganda"). Those defending La Patilla said that it is one of the most popular websites in Venezuela and that though it reposts questionable sources, it does not do it often.

@NoonIcarus, Visviva, and Burrobert: Pinging users previously involved. --WMrapids (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1: La Patilla is currently one of the main outlets in Venezuela, with 13 years of experience mostly as a news aggregator, and as such, a valuable resource for references in Venezuela related topics. While concerns with editorial independence have been brought up, examples of how it has been affected have not been given. Per WP:SOURCECOUNTING, examples of unreliability were uncommon, and links provided before were not representative of La Patilla's overall performance.

I really don't want to go over the details again and the previous discussion can be consulted, and I would like new editors to participate and give their feedback, but I can invite them to look after its use in articles about Venezuela, and see that in those cases there have not been concerns regarding reliability. Pinging @Kingsif, JML1148, Red-tailed hawk, and SandyGeorgia:, who also participated in the last discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

While I have the chance, I'll put out to WP:BLUDGEON concerns pointed out in the previous RfC, as well as related ones. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 Concerns have been raised over the quality of reporting decreasing since 2019 or 2020; before some cut-off date in that period, La Patilla can be considered generally reliable. After this, it is typically accurate but may present bias - sticking to the facts rather than using it as a gauge of sentiment would be wise, and editors could include in-line attributions. Obviously any of the reposts from other sources should be judged based on the reliability of the original source. There was a mention that alleged recent unreliability for coverage of politics; I don't find much credence to this, and think the allegation mistakes partisanship in a fact-checking source for "propaganda" (I won't speculate as to why). Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  The issue with placing a date on this is that La Patilla has reposted WP:RT[.]COM since at least 2013, WP:EPOCHTIMES since 2014, WP:BREITBART since 2015, WP:ZEROHEDGE since 2016 and PanAm Post since early 2018. WMrapids (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 I know I previously said I didn't want to be involved in this dispute anymore, but I feel quite strongly about this one. La Patilla has reposted articles from unreliable right-wing sources Breitbart and Epoch Times, among others. There has also been links made between La Patilla and right-wing politicians. Considering the Western sources that have been deprecated, I don't see why this shouldn't be considered unreliable. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4: Per the previous discussion, La Patilla republishes WP:BREITBART, WP:EPOCHTIMES, WP:ZEROHEDGE, WP:IBTIMES articles, so obviously that is the audience they are catering for. NoonIcarus previously stated "Breitbart's unreliability is not as known is the Spanish speaking sphere also has to be considered", but if La Patilla were a quality source and had decent editorial staff, they would obviously not be republishing such articles like they have been doing for years. The argument that they are "one of the main outlets in Venezuela" is also a red herring since it has nothing to do with La Patilla's reliability. We can look at WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS as an example; Fox News may be "the most-watched cable network in the U.S.", but that does not make it reliable. Visviva also stated in the previous discussion "I don't really have an objection to option 3 either. I went with the more cautious choice mostly just out of concern that there might be some valuable use of this source that hasn't come to light". Looking at what this user said, there are really no examples of La Patilla being cited by reliable sources except for discussing court proceedings against the outlet. BBC News did however describe La Patilla as a "satirical website" while BBC Monitoring wrote in an article discussing Venezuelan outlets that La Patilla "churns out a barrage of pro-opposition and anti-government news items", that the outlet "has a penchant for dramatic headlines, such as 'Venezuela in its third day of paralysis and anguish due to the red blackout, with no solution in sight'" and described La Patilla as "rabidly anti-government" . Overall, much of La Patilla's content has a pretty heavy bias and it republishes articles from unreliable sources.--WMrapids (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC) (Edit: Adding "or 4" after content farm concerns were raised)1 -- WMrapids (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 There is quite strong evidence here of publishing content which is unusable for us, if it were a UK website, I have no doubt it would already be deprecated. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

As commented in the previous discussion, the examples provided for this is either content originally posted by reliable sources or statements by foreign politicians or entities. WP:ABOUTSELF applies specially in the case of RT; hence why WP:SOURCECOUNTING was cited: a large list of links was offered, only having in common word matches, without examining reliability in depth, and the few exceptions did not prove this was systematic for the WP:GUNREL qualification. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 some important examples of unreliable behaviour have been brought here but a few examples are not sufficient to make it a perennial or deprecated source per WP:SOURCECOUNTING. As far as I can see from the previous conversation (uninvolved) the notability of the source has been demonstrated but few articles, if any, really investigate the topic of La Patilla unreliability and it is more about government pressure on the news site. I think the best compromise would be to add general considerations as to not be used "to substantiate exceptional claims or unsourced investigations" due to sensationalistic titles and rapid coverage. I think its mistakes are not really topic related. Accusations of partisanship have been brought forward but it is clear that La Patilla is independent and has published many articles about government and opposition scandals. Also let us remind that opinion articles are never to be used without attribution independently of the source.--ReyHahn (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

How does listing examples of La Patilla reposting deprecated and blacklisted sources equate to WP:SOURCECOUNTING? Someone made the backhanded request of "Continue the discussion until it is pages long just like Fox News (23, last time I checked WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS), providing repeated instances of factual errors, and perhaps I'll concede." So, I was obliged to answer with many instances of La Patilla reposting articles from poor sources. Are we not here to review La Patilla's editorial behavior? It doesn't matter that La Patilla removes some words or phrases from the poor sources when they repost articles, La Patilla is still citing poor sources. Why would La Patilla's editorial team repost articles from poor sources for over ten years?

Here is just one example. In late-2022, La Patilla reposted the article "Maduro's regime empties prisons and sends violent criminals to the US border" from WP:BREITBART through their own editorial voice. In the article, La Patilla is asserting that the Maduro government is sending criminals to the US and that a "source, who is not authorized to talk to the media, told Breitbart Texas that the measure recalls a similar action taken by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro during the Mariel boatlift in the 1980s." However, looking at the facts surrounding the Mariel boatlift, only about 2% of the 125,000 migrants sent were estimated to be criminals, while other individuals were involved in small crimes or were formerly imprisoned political opponents. Just from this one example, we can see La Patilla pushing a false narrative, with the help of WP:BREITBART, to demonize the Maduro and Castro governments. WMrapids (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Quick note that La Patilla withdrew a related article and that Castro did release criminals during the Mariel boatlift, offering the option between emigration and jail time. Also, when I mentioned that discussions should be as long as Fox News', I did not mean they had to be artificially prolonged with a list of links, only that there such be enough community participation for that amount of time to reach the same conclusions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Please stop the continuation of the false narrative. If you read the source, the Cuban government wanted to release “undesirables”, such as political opponents and homosexuals, not specifically criminals. As the other sources state, the majority were not “criminals” as they are normally defined. WMrapids (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a reliability problem, since convicts were released regardless. The same can be said for many of the other point brought up, including calling Fidel Castro a dictator: describing the leader of a one-party state that ruled for almost 50 years is only normal. That it might be a debatable term and other sources won't use it is another matter, but it is unrelated to reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2: For La Patilla to be considered "generally unreliable" as a source, there has to be sufficient amount of evidence proving that it has been routinely publishing misinformations and asserting them as facts. Like the newspapers of records that have been deemed generally reliable by the community, a news source that has been active for over a decade like La Patilla is bound to have published some mistakes from time to time. So cherrypicking a few examples of false or misleading statements is not going to be enough and the other participants of this discussion supporting Option 3 have not provided any example whatsoever.

Also, republishing translated articles from unreliable and deprecated sources does not automatically or necessarily mean that any of the informations in those republished articles is false. Claiming that an info that happens to be in a source has to be false because that source routinely publishes misinformation is association fallacy. You are going to have to check the republished articles one by one to see if most of them actually contain misinformation to actually support this assertion. If the primary concern is over these republished articles, then we could include in the summary on WP:RSPSOURCES that "republished articles from unreliable or deprecated sources should not be used to support exceptional claims or statements of fact" especially since La Patilla always clearly indicates the respective original news source and author either near the start or at the end of those republished articles. That is why I support Option 2 for "additional considerations apply".

Furthermore, as NoonIcarus said in the previous discussion on Talk:La Patilla, this source has retracted articles and removed questionable statements before indicating at least a degree of editorial oversight.

Lastly, being biased or opinionated for politics is not really significant or relevant for assessing reliability. Most of the generally reliable newspapers of records and other sources whose editorial stances and biases have always been clear to everyone do not even have their summaries on WP:RSPSOURCES indicate that they are biased. Jacobin is much less subtle about its political bias compared to La Patilla and yet it is still considered "generally reliable" (so far anyway).

--StellarHalo (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. The OP says complaints are about reposting "anti-immigrant" or "opinion articles" or "bias". That means it's not about "Reliability of La Patilla", it's about politics of La Patilla. That's an improper basis for starting a WP:RSN RfC with banning options. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  La Patilla’s use of blacklisted and deprecated sources, in addition to its spread of false narratives (example above), is directly related to its reliability in addition to its extreme bias. WMrapids (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  This brings up another important issue from the last discussion: many of the links cited as examples of unreliability were actually opinion articles. These are clearly distinguished from news articles, and as such should not be considered to weight unreliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4. I read a dozen or so articles and a few dozen headlines, and I'm not seeing much that I'd consider trustworthy. Most of the articles were reposts, which suggests that they're a "content farm" more than a "news outlet". That they readily repost Breitbart, Epoch Times, RT, etc. should be an instant fail as far as reliability goes. If they do repost news from an otherwise reliable source, then we should use the original article, not La Patilla. Few reliable sites repost LP articles and (as mentioned above) several consider them biased or satirical, which points to their lack of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And, to be clear, it's not that their bias makes them unreliable, but that their bias leads to them repost fake news, rush content (and then retract it), write misleading headlines, etc.—which is what makes them unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this assessment. La Patilla appears to be content farm since there is little original content provided across its articles. And yes, search through the list of WP:GREL sources and their use of La Patilla; you will find little to nothing. After reviewing "Healthline: deprecate or blacklist?", La Patilla seems to be similar to Red Ventures websites in the way that it may participate in churnalism. WMrapids (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Where did check for these headlines again? A quick browse through its website (lapatilla.com) will easily show plenty of articles that are original content. Here are some examples, just from today's headlines:

• Domestic:
• International:
• Opposition primaries (precandidates for next year's elections):

La Patilla is far from being a content farm at all. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Domestic:

1. Repost of EFE
2. Repost of press release
3. Original to LP
4. Original to LP

International:

1. Original to LP
2. Repost of a journalist's post
3. Repost of Daily Star (United Kingdom) tabloid
4. Repost of Agence France-Presse

As for opposition primaries, of course La Patilla will cover the process themselves as they are the opposition outlet. So yeah, the majority of what you shared that is not directly related to the opposition is just reposts from other sources. WMrapids (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Translations are not reposts, specially when original content is added. It's also interesting to see how the goalposts are moved in face of the examples. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Questionable and WP:FRINGE information examples

Here is a list of examples showing some questionable information presented by La Patilla:

• "Maduro's regime empties prisons and sends violent criminals to the US border" – A repost of a WP:BREITBART article that compares the alleged actions of the Maduro government to the false narrative that Castro packed criminals into the Mariel boatlift to send to the US
• "Report: Venezuela’s worst and darkest head North for destinations like Martha’s Vineyard" – Another WP:BREITBART repost that uses the Mariel boatlift comparison; "Socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro is freeing some of Venezuela’s most violent criminals from prison and sending them to the U.S. southern border ... The source, not authorized to speak to the media, told Breitbart Texas the move by Venezuela of freeing criminals who then head for the U.S. is reminiscent of a similar action taken by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro during the Mariel boat lift in the 1980s"
• "This US airline will fire 593 workers who refused to get vaccinated against Covid-19" – A repost of a WP:EPOCHTIMES article that states "the company would start the process of dismissal of employees who refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19, the disease caused by the CCP virus (Chinese Communist Party), according to a memorandum addressed to employees, obtained by The Epoch Times", with no editorial removal of this WP:FRINGE content from La Patilla.
• "When could the world be free of coronavirus? What some experts say" – Citing the WP:EPOCHTIMES for information about COVID-19; "According to an extensive article in The Epoch Times, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the world cannot be controlled until at least 2027." Um, yeah.
• "Faith and freedom: How a Shen Yun dancer escaped from China" – A WP:EPOCHTIMES propaganda piece promoting the Falun Gong and Shen Yun; "like tens of millions of people in China, were in the crosshairs of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) due to his religious faith. From night to morning, approximately 70 to 100 million Falun Gong practitioners, also known as Falun Dafa, went from being known to the general public as kind people who practiced meditation and followed "Truth, Benevolence and Tolerance," to being branded as enemies of the state in 1999."
• "Republican Mitch McConnell warns of the return to confinement in the United States if people do not get vaccinated against Covid-19" – More WP:FRINGE from an WP:EPOCHTIMES repost; "Many governors in 2020 imposed tough measures, such as the closure of schools and businesses. The result was widespread unemployment and an increase in health problems such as drug abuse. Some experts said that the closures helped stop the spread of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19." Again, La Patilla left this dubious material in the article.
• "Iran's revenge on the United States after Soleimani's death could pass through Venezuela" – Pushing WP:FRINGE info from PanAm Post suggesting that Iran and Hezbollah would try to attack the US with the help of Venezuela.

This is what I've had time to place. May add more later if necessary, but this should provide a picture of La Patilla's editorial quality which promotes quantity over quality.--WMrapids (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's go through your claims of questionable info and WP:FRINGE one by one:

• Mariel boatlift comparison: Neither of those articles actually say that Castro sent criminals to the United States. They were just pointing out the similarity in which both Maduro and Castro regimes took advantage of mass exoduses to get rid of people they saw as undesirable.
• "This US airline will fire 593 workers who refused to get vaccinated against Covid-19": "CCP Virus" is simply a term the Epoch Times uses as a substitute for SARS-Cov-2 virus and a term that will never be used on here due to WP:UNDUE. Besides that, the content of this short article has no false info, as seen here
• "When could the world be free of coronavirus? What some experts say": That claim was clearly attributed to a subject matter expert and reported on by a newspaper of record and other sources. Not sure how that would be considered questionable or WP:FRINGE.
• "Faith and freedom: How a Shen Yun dancer escaped from China": You are going to have to point out which specific part of that quote you highlighted from this article is false.
• "Republican Mitch McConnell warns of the return to confinement in the United States if people do not get vaccinated against Covid-19": Again, besides keeping "CCP Virus" from the original, which part of the highlighted quote is WP:FRINGE?
• "Iran's revenge on the United States after Soleimani's death could pass through Venezuela": Analysis made by a subject matter expert on topics of national security, Latin America, and Iran affiliated with at least one prominent think tank and appearing in several reliable sources for relevant comments (Ex: 1, 2) is not WP:FRINGE especially when the expert knows about the content of the PanAm Post article.

Also, all this focus on reposted articles from unreliable or deprecated sources is nothing more than red herring. How many of the articles from this source currently being used as citations on 313 pages   are actually reposted from any of the aforementioned unreliable or deprecated sources? How many of those are actually reposted from somewhere else for that matter? There are several pages of subjects related to Latin American topics currently using original articles written by La Patilla itself as citations. If anyone here wants to erase all those citations, then you will have to prove that they contain misinformations.

StellarHalo (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It is astounding what you are attempting to ignore.

• The Breitbart/La Patilla articles comparing Venezuela and Cuba are directly implying that both countries were attempting to send criminals to the United States (similar to the "weaponizing migration" charges below). For the former, the "source" was "not authorized to speak to the media" while only speaking with Breitbart (fishy) and for the latter, research has already determined that a very small percentage of Mariel boatlift migrants were criminals.
• The fact that La Patilla published "the disease caused by the CCP virus (Chinese Communist Party)" obviously pushes the fringe theory that the CCP were involved with the creation of the virus. If we were reading a good source, we wouldn't have to worry about WP:UNDUE terms, let alone WP:FRINGE terms, but this is not the case with La Patilla as their editors republish questionable material through a poor review process.
• Regarding the COVID-19 end date article, La Patilla is citing the Epoch Times on COVID-19 information. What reputable source would do that?
• Humire is a dubious source of such information and often participates in fear mongering. He is an Epoch Times contributor. He was a panel host at CPAC where he pushed conspiracy theories, calling COVID-19 the "china virus" (2:55), implied that the US-Mexico border is "heading into" the condition of the Colombia-Venezuela where he says China, Iran and Russia are present (10:15) and said that "Venezuela is weaponizing migration" (18:15). The Washington Office on Latin America has said that the SFS has made claims from "unspecified" sources in the past. Much of the information appears to be hearsay or conspiracies. Whether he is an Atlantic Council commentator or not, we have to pick apart each source and he is obviously not a good one.
• Your "red herring" charges are in fact a red herring itself, with your distraction tactic sounding like "You're showing that La Patilla is reposting questionable content from unreliable sources, but this is not related to reliability. La Patilla has previously been spread throughout Wikipedia, so we can't remove it do to its widespread use". Even if La Patilla were on every article in the project, it does not take away from the fact that it is unreliable and reposts material from other unreliable sources.

As perfectly explained above by Woodroar, La Patilla seems to be a content farm that does not fear (or have the capability to prevent) reposting unreliable content. WMrapids (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This is blatantly false and can be easily proven by taken a quick look through its main page, as I explained above. There is plenty of original content, and most of its reposted content are translations from reliable sources such as AFP and Reuters (something that I also mentioned at the original discussion), while including some original text, which is common practice among newspapers. Jumping to this conclusion demonstrates carelessness in assessing the outlet's reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

First, please read Wikipedia:No original research. Your personal analysis of what conclusion or narrative those articles imply has no relevance to the source's reliability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Only what the sources clearly and explicitly state themselves is relevant. The same goes for your interpretation of "CCP Virus". Second, as I mentioned in the main discussion above, you are using guilt by association to push and jump to unwarranted conclusions that info in a reposted article must be wrong, questionable, or WP:FRINGE solely based on the reputation of the original news site the article was taken from and more importantly that La Patilla routinely publishes misinformation just because some of the reposted articles originated from unreliable sources. Third, quoted speculative analyses on near future events or courses of actions by subject matter experts are used all the time by RS in articles and news broadcasts especially when those experts also happen to be specialists in the specific relevant topics of the breaking news in question. You calling those analyses "conspiracies" and "fear mongering" does not make them WP:FRINGE. Again, you are using guilt by association to dismiss the views of an academic who has a long history of being used as subject matter expert by RS rather than engaging with the substance of the speculative argument itself.

Most importantly, as I already said above, you have to prove that La Patilla routinely publishes misinformation if you want your claim of it being generally unreliable to hold any water and you have not done so. Also, and just as important, I have not gone through all the 313 pages using this source as citations but from what I have seen, vast majority of those are original articles of La Patilla rather than reposted and none of the few reposted articles being used are actually from any of the aforementioned unreliable sources. For reposted articles, it is easy to just assess the original sources they were taken from individually to determine if they should be used or simply just not use reposted articles at all like I suggested. It is quite clear that you are trying to use questionable origins of a minority of contents to dismiss the rest of the content of La Patilla wholesale. You keep focusing on the notion that reposting articles from unreliable sources affect the reliability of La Patilla's original contents without any evidence. StellarHalo (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The RfC process is based on users interpreting which sources should or shouldn't be used based on reliability concerns and determining a consensus on the source in question. It's not difficult to see that "the disease caused by the CCP virus" is disinformation phrasing that was either promoted or ignored by La Patilla editors, which would show unreliability in both instances. The whole purpose of WP:RS is that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Why would Wikipedia users find a source that uses unreliable sources reliable? This is not guilt by association if La Patilla is directly reposting articles from unreliable sources, La Patilla then becomes the unreliable source as it is not just association. Further, per WP:QUESTIONABLE, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. ... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

• Is La Patilla a questionable source? Y Yes

Now we can visit WP:USEBYOTHERS, which states "How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. ... For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." Already recognizing that La Patilla is a questionable source, we can visit the concerns by other users (such as @Visviva and Woodroar:) who note that La Patilla is not used by WP:GREL sources.

• Is La Patilla a questionable source and has limited use by others? Y Yes

Lastly, let's focus on fake news promoted by La Patilla. Not only does La Patilla post questionable content from deprecated and blacklisted sources, it does so itself. For instance, during the 2014 Venezuelan protests, La Patilla published the article "Unacceptable: Repressive forces beat and arrest a special young man (Photos)" (it still hasn't been fixed after nearly 10 years), though the photographer later explained the photos saying "I'm going to be very clear about this image, I took it, and it's a GN official helping a protester to breathe" and the Associated Press stated "A Bolivarian National Guard officer holds a demonstrator’s head up to help him breathe". The conservative Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia would also write "The violinist was the latest victim of the disproportionate violence of 'the paramilitary forces of the Chavista dictatorship,' as repeated in digital opposition media such as La Patilla ... However, as at other times in this crisis, the narrative of a heroic youth massacred by the Bolivarian dictatorship does not stick to the facts", with the article further explaining that La Patilla said a tear gas canister was the cause of death while further investigation showed that a ball bearing, possibly fired by protesters, was the deadly projectile and that Reuters had photos of protesters with makeshift firearms. In another instance, El Mundo analyzed a photograph from Hurricane Irene in 2011 that was used by La Patilla show shortages in Venezuela, writing "Whether for laziness and lack of diligence when it comes to verifying the origin of the image or because of a desire for manipulation, ... the Venezuelan opposition decided to systematically use this image."

• Is La Patilla a questionable source that has limited use by others and has promoted manipulated content? Y Yes

With these concerns identified, one can see that La Patilla is unreliable. WMrapids (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Trains (magazine)

Trains is a monthly trade publication published in the U.S. about railroads primarily in the U.S. and Canada. It also maintains trains.com, where news and articles are posted. I was reading through Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide and noticed it had never come up here before after doing a search. I'd like to establish some record of the reliability of Trains for future reference.

Personally I consider Trains to be generally reliable for coverage of, well, trains. It is a long-standing publication with an editorial team and in the decade I've been reading the magazine I've never encountered any major issues with reliability. I used two articles from Trains heavily in improving Providence and Worcester Railroad to featured article status and it's an occasional sight across our train articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Why does this need debating in the first place? Are there concerns with this source? If there are no concerns, why are we here? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought this was the place where we ascertained if sources were reliable? Am I mistaken? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It is indeed. There's no particular need to come here if a source hasn't been challenged, but I think advisory opinions are okay too. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I would consider Trains and its sister publications from Kalmbach Publishing (Classic Trains, Model Railroader) to be thoroughly reliable. The editorial board is independent, they do fact-checking, they correct errors. More of a trade publication than a rail enthusiast publication, though there's some of that of course. Many of the writers they publish have published elsewhere. Has someone objected to its use? Mackensen (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

My father has a near complete collection of Trains magazine from (I think?) 1949 onward. That's neither here nor there, but I felt like bragging for a moment. Agree with everyone, perfectly reliable within its sphere. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

That's definitely worth some bragging rights! Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Across the pond, we use rail magazines to cite anything (most magazines - and pretty much all rail-related magazines - being perfectly reliable); for example, when updating fleet lists and so on... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Net Worth Post

User:Filmssssssssssss pointed me to this page after I removed an apparently unsourced DOB addition to a BLP and they restored the DOB without a citation. I am wondering if this is a RS source? Their about us page leaves me uncertain. I also clicked on the author page which is ascribed to a Tom Ford although the bio on that page keeps referring to him as "Frank" for some reason. I'm concerned about adding this as a citation. Filmssssssssssss replied that "Based on the information from other sources in addition to this one, I still believe that this is most likely a reputable source". I would like to see what others think of this source before I add a citation. Thank you. 2601:240:E200:3B60:9592:2091:C98F:C348 (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not reliable. Used to be celebritynetworth.wiki. Any of the networth/celeb bio sites are normally trash as a source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I saw the reply and I saw that it has not been deemed reliable, many apologies to that, and I have restored your edit. 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC) 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for working this out! 2601:240:E200:3B60:9592:2091:C98F:C348 (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Google Maps

Hello! I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but is it okay to use Google Maps as a citation? I was using it quite a bit when I was adding to the A508 road page, but I wasn't certain if it's permissible. Looking forward to hearing your response, Roads4117 (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEMAPS ;) DonIago (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Doniago!! Roads4117 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Also see the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Under the Radar (magazine)

I was making a citation for The Grants, and I was wondering if Under The Radar was a reliable source? Joejazzy (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of "Dirt.com"?

While looking up more information about Rebecca Sugar, I came across an article about her reported purchase of a home in L.A.. This publication was brought up before on this noticeboard in October 2022, but there was no reply back then. I will say the SAME story was even retracted by Cartoon Brew, which is rare for them to have do a retraction, from all my reading of that publication. Is dirt.com too tabloidish (i.e. going against WP:BLPGOSSIP or similar rules) to be added? Is it reliable, at all? Your views on this would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Dirt.com is owned by Penske Media Corporation, which also owns Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline Hollywood, Rolling Stone etc. It started off as the real estate news section of Variety in 2014 (though based on a gossip column) before becoming its own site in 2019.[25] It has an editorial team[26] and has published corrections in the past.[27] It doesn't seem especially unreliable for its type of news, I guess. DoubleCross (‡) 17:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And now reading the Cartoon Brew article, it seems they retracted it not because of unreliability, but because of angry pushback from readers over fears of Sugar getting doxxed. - DoubleCross (‡) 19:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If the article was withdrawn as a possible invasion of privacy, that really sounds to me like something we should not be citing. I also note that the gossip-ish nature of the source makes it sound questionable at best for a biography of a living person. John M Baker (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

KidScreen

KidScreen is a trade magazine owned by Brunico Communications. Is this source reliable? 2708 urls/articles are listed here [28]. Timur9008 (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)