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. 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

Military fansites

I need help mowing the weeds of military fansites, currently identified are:

• navysite.de [1] with 300+ uses [2]
• navsource.org [3] with 500+ uses
• maritimequest.com [4]] with 100+ uses
• helis.com [5]] with 500+ uses
• gonavy.jp [6]] with dozens of uses
• uscarriers.net [7] with dozens of uses
• Weaponsystems.net [8] with dozens of uses
• designation-systems.net [9]] with 500+ uses
• joebaugher.com [10] with 100+ uses
• f-16.net [11]] with dozens of uses
• aerialvisuals.ca [12] with 100+ uses

Any help is much obliged, feel free to name more as well. Also wondering whether blacklisting these wouldn't keep the weeds down once mown. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blacklisting is generally limited to spam, but it would be appropriate to have these sites deprecated, like the many self-published peerage sites. In addition to those you've listed, here are dozens, if not hundreds of other military-related fansites that are used as sources, each with their own focus; ships, aircraft, weapons, this or that war or combatants, medals...etc. It's a nearly inexhaustible list. But,your list is a start I propose that they all be deprecated.Banks Irk (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think in some cases they are spam as well, people make a fansite and then add it to wikipedia to drive traffic to their site or to steal legitimacy. In any case we need a RFC to deprecate so I will open one below. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Redjacket3827: care to give your two cents here? Your most recent edits are all related. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Actually I wrote the page in question and those references have been there for some time. If you have better references, by all means use them, but for now that is all we have. Redjacket3827 (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That makes it worse not better... No reliable sources means we don't cover it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Previous discussions from RSN: (1) f-16.net, (2) aviation fansites, including aerialvisuals.ca
• I'd go with assume they are unreliable WP:SPS unless proven otherwise. Cleaning up after these is supremely annoying, as demonstrated by the extremely slow progress in User:Ljleppan/Aerodrome cleanup. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• I've notified WP:MILHIST, WP:AVIATION and WP:SHIPS of this discussion, as these sources appear related to articles within the scopes of said WikiProjects. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• I would add to this list Military Factory - see here and here as previously discussed on WP:RSN. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

We've already started the RFC so I'm not sure if its kosher to just add more, we can make a second list though. I would add www.hdekker.info which for some bizarre reason was actually added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources as a preferred source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The OP wrote, "feel free to name more as well." I'm not sure it's kosher to open an RFC while that process is still live. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 01:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I like the cheek but that is actually how it works RFC wise. I apologize for the sloppiness of the whole thing, I was not originally intending to open an RFC but a request was made for deprecation to be on the table and thats not possible without opening one. Do you think it would be helpful to make a dedicated page for cataloguing such fan sites? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A dedicated list of fan sites? Not in general, there are far too many of them and few have established any notability in themselves. However, as I mention somewhere, the Aviation Wiki project maintains a short list of the most persistently cited offenders at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Questionable sources. Other projects might wish to do the same. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 02:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC (Military fansites)

What best describes the 11 listed military fansite's reliability?

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

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Should be decided on a case by case basis depending on the claim and the sources provided for the specific article Boynamedsue (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate. All of the eleven listed are self-published fansites. They should all be deprecated, similar to the deprecation of the various self-published peerage sites. Cf.WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Self-published_peerage_websites I see no need to go through a dozen separate RFCs on this, as it is so clear-cut. Banks Irk (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:DEPSOURCES currently only lists 46 sites. I think we'd need to find a better case before adding these relatively little-used sources to the automated deprecation system. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3:. Not a lot to say, unless they are published by aknowleged experts they are not RS. Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 3 These are typically self published or user generated sources and are typically considered not reliable. However, a SPS exception could be made for acknowledged experts on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 3 [changed]. All are self-published and are not peer reviewed. Therefore, by default they fail the policy on WP:Reliable sources. But WP:DEPRECATE lists only 46 sites, so these are clearly not on that scale of problem. The Aviation wiki project maintains a shortlist of the worst offenders it comes across at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Questionable sources, but frankly there are so many such sites everywhere that military fandom is nothing unusual and, for most of them, simple recognition of WP:RS should be enough to police the issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC) [Vote changed 16:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)]

• Option 3 for the main body of an article but exceptions might be made for the external links section per WP:ELMAYBE. Skeet Shooter (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - I've only encountered the naval-themed sites, and I wouldn't ever use them as references. But maritimequest and navsource are generally good repositories of images, so those at least are fine for external link sections (which is where I generally see them used in any event). Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  FYI the editor that opened this RfC has already removed links to the listed sites, including navsource, from the external links sections of hundreds of articles so that's exactly what we're talking about here. Raitchison (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  FYI I've also left it in the external links where it appears helpful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Using one specific example, the one that made me aware of this discussion/issue you edited the article for USS Paul F. Foster to remove 3 of the 4 entries under external links. Just by removing the links to navsource and navysite you removed access for interested Wikipedia users to hundreds of images as well as other documents relevant for that particular ship. I am having a hard time understanding how those links were not helpful. Raitchison (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  None of those images are unique, a google image search for "USS Paul F. Foster" returns all that and more so its not really helpful in any way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Obviously self-published and/or user-generated sources should not be used. Bishonen | tålk 07:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC).
• Option 2 - I can't comment on this particular site list as I am not familiar with all the sites in question. However, my understanding has been that there is a long-established consensus that sites of this type are acceptable as sources so long as they themselves include a list of reliable sources from which their information was derived. Perhaps the foremost example would be uboat.net, which is used on literally hundreds of U-boat articles on Wikipedia, but there are plenty of others. I might add that generally speaking, I have found such "fansites" to be considerably better than many supposedly reliable sources, which are in fact often riddled with errors in my experience. Well maintained fansites which list their sources are not only typically highly accurate, but also usually reflect the most up-to-date scholarship, which reliable sources frequently do not. In short, I think it would be a mistake to reflexively purge such sources if that's what is being proposed; rather they should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Gatoclass (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: a review of this noticeboard's history suggests that either we have no consensus on uboat.net or we have a consensus that it is unreliable, there is not way to interpret those prior discussions as resulting in a consensus that uboat.net is reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but then there is no clear consensus that they are unreliable either. In practice, however, they clearly have been widely accepted as reliable - there are 23 uboat GAs, for example, that appear to rely on uboat.net as their primary source, and there are probably also numerous GAs for merchant ships and other surface vessels that reference the site. But I think the bottom line here is that the website clearly is a highly reliable resource for information about uboats and the vessels they interacted with. If the information on a website is demonstrably reliable, what purpose is served by excluding it? If better sources can be found, by all means substitute them, but failing that, there seems no compelling reason to me to remove such references and the information derived from them. Gatoclass (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

That would be an issue with the competence of those GA evaluators. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It is still a factor to be considered. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC Sources should be evaluated individually, without prejudicial framing. And if they truly are "fansites," RSP doesn't need to be populated with them unless they've been especially problematic. GretLomborg (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 - My opinions largely mirror those of Gatoclass. Absent examples of these 'fansites' providing inaccurate, unreliable or otherwise problematic information they should not be assumed to be unreliable. The sites listed that I am familiar with are certainly well maintained with editorial control by the operators. I can't tell you how many times a listed reliable source has made an error that one of these sites would never have made. Moreover a wholesale purge of references to these sites (that has already been undertaken) will unquestionably result in the removal of a massive amount of both useful and overwhelmingly factual information being removed from these articles. Raitchison (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Raitchison: so you are explicitly arguing that we should disregard WP:SPS? They are still SPS absent any of that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: SPS isn't completely blacklisted (except in the case of WP:BLP which doesn't apply here) we're supposed to 'exercise caution'. I did not suggest that these sites should always be considered reliable either. Raitchison (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has proposed adding these sources to the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Are you of the understanding that "largely not acceptable as sources" falls under option 2 not 3? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm under the understanding that 'additional considerations apply' under Option 2 clearly applies in this situation. Also I don't see the point of not calling them blacklisted sources when you've already purged links to these sites from hundreds of articles and have asked for assistance in finishing the job. In any case I certainly don't agree with option 2 because it's absurd to suggest that the information on these sites is not overwhelmingly reliable or factual. I'd certainly trust information on these sites more than information from a non-military focused generally reliable source (example of Newsweek or the New York Times). Raitchison (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

you don't see the point of not calling things that haven't been added to our wp:blacklist blacklisted? Removing poor quality sources (which includes all amateur SPS) in contexts that require reliable sources is all of our responsibility, that will be the same if the result is additional considerations apply or deprecate+blacklist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a site hasn't been added to WP:BLACKLIST if it's lack of inclusion/approval on WP:RSP and the mere fact that the sites are SPS will be used to justify a wholesale purge of useful and overwhelmingly factual information from the site. Moreover I flatly reject the notion that these sites are automatically 'poor quality' just because they are SPS. In the case of at least the first two listed sites this is clearly not the case. Raitchison (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Wait, the first one? What about navysite.de isn't poor quality? Its a single person (Thoralf Doehring) amateur blog which is scraped from half of the internet and hosted on an ad-heavy yet childishly constructed site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Debatable whether that site could be considered ad heavy considering it has a small fraction of the ads that most commercial RSP sites do. In any case that site is overwhelmingly encyclopedic in nature as is navsource. Raitchison (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"encyclopedic in nature" is not part of our reliability standards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Which again brings us back to 'additional considerations apply'. I don't disagree that SPS sites should be used with caution per WP:SPS but I do not agree that SPS automatically equates to 'poor quality' and used to justify a wholesale purge of useful and factual information. Also I don't even know what would make a site 'childishly constructed'. Raitchison (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Amateur SPS are automatically poor quality sources, expert SPS are a completely different kettle of fish but none of the sources under consideration here qualify. Also just FYI unless there are BLP or copyright concerns "useful and factual information" generally won't be removed, just the source. That "wholesale purge" only exists in your imagination. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that your edit history for this month effectively illustrates the 'wholesale purge' I am referring to. In any case I am confident that I have adequately explained my position and reasoning for the benefit of other editors as well as the closing administrator so I bid you good day. Raitchison (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, look at my edit history... I'm not removing "useful and factual information." You don't get to make a personal attack and walk away, you have to provide diffs at the bare minimum. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 - falls under SPS and only if there is some way to verify that the person who wrote it is who they say they are (eg a verified twitter account of an expert saying I wrote this on this site). Generally option 3/4 though, but for the rare instance in which an acknowledged subject matter expert says publicly that such and such account on such and such forum is theirs, the usable for attributed views of experts. nableezy - 17:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy: note that to the best of my knowledge none of these sites contain an "instance in which an acknowledged subject matter expert says publicly that such and such account on such and such forum is theirs" rare or otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, doesnt change my answer as such a rare possibility remains possible. nableezy - 17:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Now worries, I was just a little confused because people normally use "generally unreliable" when only a rare possibility remains possible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean I did say generally 3/4, but Ive long been on record that SMEs are citeable if they write their thoughts in yellow in the snow. So that view remains in place for this. nableezy - 17:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 4 this is a topic covered by academics extensively in a vast variety of publications including online. Should be no reason to use fansites at all.....this is not pop culture but an academic topic.Moxy- 18:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI we're not talking about OPED type articles here, many of the pages linked are simply lists of facts about what the article along with images and other documents. Here are a couple examples of what we are talking about: [13]http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/964.htm [14]https://www.navysite.de/bb/bb61.htm. Most of the time these sources are linked it is in the External Links section of the article.

There is no indication that the sites are posting false or fabricated information as Option 4 would suggest. Raitchison (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct, we are talking about sources which are literally less reliable than many op-eds. Op-eds are often published by subject matter experts, none of these here are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Google scholar records hits in excess of 500 for both navsource.org and uboat.net. Gatoclass (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you want us to have an RfC for uboat.net? You keep bringing it up a lot for a source that isn't under consideration here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Well according to your criteria, it wouldn't be any more eligible than any of the other sites listed, would it? But you haven't responded to the question I tacitly put, which is, if a website is considered reliable enough to cite by literally hundreds of scholarly works, why should it be considered unreliable here? Gatoclass (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This Wikipedia is cited by hundreds of scholarly works, but we do not regard ourselves as a reliable source. Some purportedly scholarly journals have been outright blacklisted as quackery. So it is more correct to challenge any supposedly scholarly claim, that is supported by reference to Wikipedia or dubious fansites such as the ones under discussion here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that a source can be used by others and not WP:RS. It should be considered unreliable because it is a non-expert SPS and nothing you have said has countered that core point. Steelpillow has a good point that you appear to be working backwards, you're starting from the position that these fansites are reliable and then arguing from there which is how you end up with deadend arguments like GA and used by others. You need to put aside your COI and objectively evaluate the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

What, all 1000 sources citing these websites on Scholar are unreliable? Does that sound likely to you?

Other than that, something that bothers me about this discussion is that there is no clear definition in the guideline of what constitutes a WP:SPS, but it appears to be concerned mainly with books or websites published by a particular individual and that include original research. But websites like navsource and uboat.net fit neither description. Both are the result of collaboration by multiple individuals. And neither publish any original research, rather they just make available and readily accessible the latest research from reliable sources. And judging by the number of Scholar cites, they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which is surely the most important criterion. Gatoclass (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Common sense says that uboats.com is unreliable, you're being unreasonable. What you're describing is a group blog which is very common and also explicitly included under our definition of SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Do I have your permission to make this section an actual discussion for uboats.com given thats what you want to talk about and it isn't included in the RfC here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what it is you are proposing. However, after my previous post, I took a quick look through some of the citations in Google Scholar for uboat.net, and on the first two pages alone, found cites in works by Naval Institute Press, the U.S. Navy's official publishing arm, and in Conway Maritime Press, arguably the world's most prestigious publisher of maritime books. I also found the following quote from the reputable maritime magazine Northern Mariner: "Clay Blair (Hitler’s U-Boat War) and Guðmundur Helgason (Uboat.net) bring the highest standards of data dissemination to the field."[15] Helgason is the owner of uboat.net. See WP:USEBYOTHERS. Gatoclass (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm proposing that you either stay on topic (uboats.net is not under consideration at all) or we open an RfC on this topic. If their field is internet fansites thats true, but the highest standards for internet fansites are still below what we can use here on wikipedia. Note that we can't use raw data no matter how well disseminated because original analysis is forbidden to us. WP:USEBYOTHERS can not establish reliability on its own, you know that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in getting back to this. The point I have been trying to make here is that sites of this type fall into a kind of grey area with regard to policy. They do not appear to be self-published in the sense implied by policy, they do not include original research but only republish content found in reliable sources, and they often have editorial oversight, but do not necessarily include input from an "expert in the field" (though that is another term not clearly defined in policy). However, some clearly meet WP:UBO and that is the most important criterion in my view. I would add that in the last discussion on uboat.net, most participants appear to agree that it is acceptable as a source, though perhaps not ideal, a position which concurs with my own.

Having said that, as I said at the outset I am not familiar with all the sites listed above and therefore cannot vouch for all of them, but I do believe that navsource for one is a highly reliable website, on a par with uboat.net, in which case I should probably change my !vote from Option 2 to Bad RFC as I think these sites need to be assessed on an individual basis - but perhaps it's a little late to do that now. Gatoclass (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI the Naval Institute Press is not the U.S. Navy's official publishing arm, you could call it the U.S. Navy's unofficial publishing arm and be at least a quarter right but the US Naval Institute is a private organization, I know because I am a member. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 per WP:SPS --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2: Perfectly fine as an external link. Not so much otherwise. Nweil (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 3 We should use such sites with caution there is probably always better sources --Shrike (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2/3 Not sure whether this falls under option 2 or option 3, but I'd like to see these treated as WP:SPS, with onus on those referencing the fansites to demonstrate why that specific subpage/snippet is reliable. For fulfilling said onus, I'd accept "this specific page/paragraph was written by this specific established SME" (with the citation including the author's name, and not just a generic "fansite.com" attribution), but not "others have cited other information from this website" or "I haven't seen anything wrong with it so far". -Ljleppan (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 to 4 Fansites are no more reliable than various sites with user generated content. There touch is usuallu quite afar from scientific research which is the only way to learn about things. So, I am for exclusion as a rule. There maybe some exceptions, should be discussed seperately.Cinadon36 13:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 as per above. We cannot apply a blanket ruling to them all, but this is not the worst RfC in the fact that it is an issue that needed to be addressed. Also I oppose this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4: self-published, user-generated sources with no reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Hobbyist sources do not belong in the topics well studied by historians. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Mostly Option 3 - These websites have lots of cool info, but there's usually no way to determine their reliability. I cannot just create a blog and declare it reliable unless proven otherwise. Military history is intensively studied and better sources almost always exist. The only caveat consideration is if there is a contribution by an established expert. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

globalsecurity.org

Discussion (globalsecurity.org)

• Resulting from Talk:Nuclear-powered cruisers of the United States Navy. See previous discussions at [16]. Horse Eye's Back (talk)

--Not to be confused with globalresearch.ca, an unrelated site.--

Globalsecurity has been mentioned on this board several times, and is listed as "no consensus" at RSP, but it is currently being removed en masse, along with the "fansites" listed just above at "#Military fansites" (by the same editor), though the site is not part of that list. Looking among the previous discussions regarding this site, it has been noted that it is cited here over 8000 times. Several editors have noted that despite some issues with other subjects, this site should be considered reliable for military-related subjects, as the content is written by subject matter experts and military historians. Several times when this site was brought up here, is was grouped with other sites and the focus ended up on those other sites instead. As noted above, this site has been confused for globalreseaech.ca.

Lastly, I would of course encourage anyone responding here to read those previous discussions for yourself, and also review the site, to help determine if it should be considered reliable. Thanks - wolf 20:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Care to comment on this unattributed and apparently original unhinged rant about the United States waging "WWIV" on the world[17]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

LOL. Can it be for real? Reads like Sino-Russian hacktivists at work. But the fact that the lack of attribution is typical of the site says it all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC (globalsecurity.org)

What best describes globalsecurity.org's reliability?

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

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Deprecate, the vast majority of the site is scraped from elsewhere without attribution. For example their headlining page for their major topic area "Taiwan"[[18]] is ripped without attribution from Radio Free Asia[19]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "As has been noted in the previous discussions[20] they also hawk conspiracy theories about 9/11, HARP, and chemtrails." ([21]) - that was globalresearch.ca. - wolf 21:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• DeprecateBanks Irk (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate as the site's material is full of unattributed WP:COPYVIO. Typical scraping operation. - Amigao (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3, by their own admission (my emphasis): "This website is compiled by human beings, mostly by compiling or summarizing what other human beings have written. Therefore, it most likely contains some mistakes and/or potential misinterpretations and should be used primarily as a way to search quickly for basic information and information sources. It should not be viewed as an exhaustive, "last-word" source for critical applications (such as those requiring legally defensible information)."[22]. Note that WP:DEPSOURCES currently only lists 46 sites. I think we'd need to find a better case for adding a relatively narrowly-focused source to the automated deprecation system. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) [Updated 16:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)]
• Option 3 - No evidence of reliability. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - In the distant past I have used globalsecurity.org as an External link for articles like 5-ton 6x6 (I got carried away) with pages like M939. I felt that it was accurate and I had plenty of other good sources to compare it to. It has no sources and I wouldn't use it as RS (edit add: I apparently did here, sorry) but in my specific example it isn't false or fabricated. I don't care if it goes myself, just pointing out that at my level it isn't Option 4. Sammy D III (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Baby with the bathwater? Sammy D III (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Leaning Option 3. There aren't any real good reasons to use it. I sometimes resort to using it as a placeholder until I can get to the library and verify with Janes. Schierbecker (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Leaning 3 as well; if you look at the staff page, it's sort of a mixed bag between people who are established experts in their field and those who aren't. If the individual articles told you who wrote them, there'd be a case to put this in option 2, but as far as I've seen, they don't credit authors. And I can't imagine a situation where they would have information on a topic in the area I edit where a better source isn't readily available. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I spot checked a name I knew (Joseph Trevithick) to be more broadly a reliable writer in this space and their linkedin suggests that their listed position is only honorary and was only retained as a form of compensation: "Conducted independent research to update sections of the website and led the internship program as an interviewer and first point of contact. Was furloughed due to a funding crisis between January and May 2010. Left the organization in 2013, again due to funding issues, but retained the unpaid title of Fellow." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3. At least for Chinese military topics, many GS articles are seemingly running aggregations of anything and everything said on the subject, rumors and all. Lack of attribution makes it difficult - if not impossible - to separate out the reliable bits (which negates the need to reference GS anyway.) It doesn't help that there are pages that look like they were Google translated, presumably from (unidentified) Chinese-language sources. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 19:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate and let's begin the slow, agonizing work of removing most of the nearly 9,000 citations to this site. The examples above show the site plagiarizes routinely, and we can't (per good sense and WP:V#Copyright and plagiarism) link to sites that violate copyright. I can mention more examples if they're needed to convince others of the major issues this source presents. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  You (or someone, at least) might want to set up something similar to User:Ljleppan/Aerodrome cleanup for tracking purposes. Ljleppan (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 this was once a better albeit borderline site, but it's only gotten worse over time even as our citation standards have increased. Also per Parsecboy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4: Deprecate the website is a well-known rumor mill. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3, as per above. I oppose this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Catholic.org (Catholic Online)

How would you evaluate the reliability of Catholic.org?

• 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

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Catholic.org (Catholic Online)

• Option 3, Catholic.org is a fansite unaffiliated with the Catholic Church run by Michael Galloway[23]. On the site you can do such things as learn about early Christians, Church teachings, and buy beef[24], wait... buy beef? Why is selling beef the primary purpose of a religious website? Color me unconvinced that this WP:SPS is a WP:RS. See also sister site catholiconline.shopping[25]. From the Justice Department source the enterprise is highly lucrative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Having look at a brief sample of citations (from the first five pages that came up in an article-space search for 'Catholic.org'), I can't see much that looks obviously 'false or fabricated'. Some content seems to be press releases-based, or archived from elsewhere. One article cited an 'encyclopedia' article which probably shouldn't be used, but beyond that, from my limited sample I'd say that the website probably falls into a 'best not used for anything important' category - so probably option 2-ish, since they are unlikely to be fabricating press releases on the appointment of cardinals etc. As for the website flogging beef, if we excluded sources that tried to sell us stuff, we'd probably have to exclude the majority of web-based sources entirely. I'd need more to go on to convince me that deprecation for 'fabrication' was merited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Why not Option 3 however? Deprecation is unnecessary, but this source definitely seems like it would fall under generally unreliable. Silverseren^C 17:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the trying to sell stuff bit is relevant due to its prominence, its lack of separation from the site's other information, and because Galloway was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison for failing to report a massive amount of income from the site[26]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Invalid RFC. Catholic.org is a republisher of articles and a repository for information. That information has been collected from disparate sources and its reliability for various purposes is highly variable. For example, there is certainly a good deal of information about patron saints contained herein, and that can generally be considered reliably and stably published. Likewise, the information about popular devotions and prayers is generally reliable. In my experience, this site also republished articles by reputable authors and scholars that had previously been published by news sites. I don't use Catholic.org too much due to its high quotient of ads and donation appeals, but I see no reason to deprecate it nor pronounce it as "generally reliable for whatever" but instead it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as editors typically do according to policy. Elizium23 (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  None of that makes the RfC invalid. Also, republishing of articles elsewhere doesn't make this source valid either. Wikipedia doesn't support using rehosting sources in the first place, since there's also copyright issues with that. You're really making the case that this is really not a source we should be using at all. Silverseren^C 18:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Catholic.org obtains copyright permission to republish the articles. I'm not sure why you would accuse them of not doing so. Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 Sounds like this is a site with no reason to be considered reliable. Rehosting of outside content doesn't make the source reliable just because of that and introduces additional issues of copyright. We should be using the original actually reliable sources, not a rehosting fansite. Silverseren^C 18:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Site fails the basic criteria in WP:RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Should not be cited but it can be used in discussions that review certain facts for accuracy (specifically feast days and anglicization of saint names). It filled the role of what should have been actually RS on so many saint articles when they were created and it’s continued use should be halted. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3/4; the things it writes itself are unusable because it's a personal website, and the stuff it rehosts without concern for copyright makes things worse because they put it under WP:ELNEVER point 2. Depending on the degree of copyright infringement and the extent to which they try to deal with it, it may require actual deprecation. --Aquillion (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3. Any reprinted content is entirely dependent on the reliability of the original source, and should be cited to that original source. Any original content fails our standards for Reliability. I see no indication applies any professional-level standards for journalistic editorial oversight. I see no indication that it has any significant reputation. Anyone can establish a non-profit and anyone can throw up a website. It fails our criteria. Beyond that, the fact that the owner has apparently been indited for issues relating to the website is hardly inspiration to extend a favorable exception here. Alsee (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Invalid RFC as per above and oppose this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Depends on context - per RS, it depends on what for. It seems obvious that it is a decent source for general information on Saints, and equally obvious that any rfc about RS without defining on the RS topics or a specific article question and not using the RS criteria items ... is not right. I also agree with Emir dislike about this “deprecation” system ... we just do not need a rfc on this nor is a record of this rfc going to have any meaningful value. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Orthodox Wiki

How would you evaluate the reliability of OrthodoxWiki.org?

• 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

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Orthodox Wiki

• Option 4, its a fringe wiki and we just can't trust it, thats kind of the end of the story. Like a few of these other ones I'm kind of shocked that we actually have to have this discussion but it is widely used [27] so we must have editors who think it is a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is completely unnecessary: WP:USERGENERATED already excludes such sources, regardless of whether they are 'fabricated' or not. If people are citing it, they need policy explained to them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I really wish it was unnecessary... I really wish RSN in its entirety was unnecessary... Part of the problem is that its not always long term editors, for example FVWHAlpha[28]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Andy. There are currently over 1 billion websites out there. We cannot hold RfCs for all of them. TFD (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This isn't just a randomly selected website. It is one that is being highly used on Wikipedia, hence why it was brought here. I think highly used and likely unreliable websites in Wikipedia articles are exactly the sort of thing that's supposed to be brought to RSN. Silverseren^C 17:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Currently, you can remove it from an article or challenge its inclusion citing WP:USERGENERATED. Assuming this RfC is successful, you can then remove or challenge it citing this RfC. How does that help anything? TFD (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

And then someone else (likely one of the people who's been adding the source everywhere) will challenge the removal, thus forcing it to be brought here anyways. What's wrong with having a consensus on removal of the source here first beforehand? Silverseren^C 17:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

We already have consensus: WP:USERGENERATED. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI if you go around nuking obviously unreliable sources people will still take issue with it... Been there done that... Even been taken to ANI a few times over it (never with the results the filer wanted, but thats a secondary point)... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not immediately clear to editors why Counterpunch is generally unreliable and Jacobin is rs, when they are at first glance similar publications. That's why it's useful to have a central location that tells us the results of previous discussions, so we don't have to repeat them. TFD (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Invalid RFC - this source is prima facie unreliable due to being user generated. Therefore calling editors to debate an RFC is a waste of our valuable time and an insult to our intelligence. I would nonetheless contend that OrthodoxWiki has a reputation for being well-curated and accurately moderated over a long period of time by mainstream Eastern Orthodox authorities, and so any facts drawn from it should be verifiable from other sources. Also it may be possible to extract footnotes or citations from the site and transfer them here. Elizium23 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  So you're basically trying to both sides this. Sorry, but it's either unreliable or not. And user generated mean unreliable, so all usage of it should be removed. Silverseren^C 18:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Don't be ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but it's useful for finding those that are. Manannan67 (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 User generated content is not reliable or can even be considered factual. All usage of the Orthodox Wiki as a source in our articles should be removed. Silverseren^C 18:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Invalid RFC / Option 3 (Summoned by bot) – As a policy matter, this RFC technically should not be held, because as TFD said, "you cannot hold an RFC" for the billions of WP:USERG websites out there. Even without this RFC, anyone should feel free to remove citations to the website, linking USERG in the edit summary, and that should be the end of it. As a practical matter, even if that is both correct and sufficient per our policies and guidelines, the fact is that if it is being cited anyway in large numbers, having an 'option 3' resolution here, while supererogatory, gives us another nail to apply to the coffin and should forestall any edit warring if the source is removed, especially if removed en masse. So, I can also go along with an 'option 3' consensus, even if it's invalid and shouldn't have to be held in the first place. Mathglot (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 I've found a lot of useful information there. But I have also come across some stuff that was either flatly wrong or promoting fringe views as representative of the Orthodox Church. All of which said, it fails the basic criteria in WP:RS. Frankly, I don't really see the need for this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 for the obvious reason of being user-generated. While I 100% support editors going there to seek out additional Easter Orthodox sources on a topic, it was never a strictly reliable source. This has been made worse as the OW project seems to have suffered from brain-drain of late, so many articles have lapsed in their reflection of new developments. No citation should ever come directly from OW, though material presented there from reliable sources should be expected to eventually migrate to Wikipedia; it's not so much fringe as niche. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 per WP:USERGENERATED. --Aquillion (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 per WP:USERGENERATED. Note that I explicitly endorse this RFC as APPROPRIATE. I am horrified to find approximately 1344 search hits[29] for this on Wikipedia. I endorse and thank anyone who wants to clean this up. Given the number of pages involved it is clearly productive and worthwhile for anyone doing cleanup to have an RFC result in hand, to efficiently deal with any opposition. In fact I'd suggest linking the RFC result in the edit summary when removing these refs. It should significantly reduce the number of people who might be inclined to object. Alsee (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2: I was going to !vote Invalid RFC because open wikis are an obvious application of WP:USERGENERATED making and RFC just a generator of a totally unnecessary clutter for RSP. However this wiki 1) is not open access (you have to request an account), 2) appears to have a substantial number of experts running and working on it (e.g. Orthodox Priests, etc) [30] and therefore may be an authoritative source for facts about that religion (from its own perspective). GretLomborg (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Professional =/= subject matter expert. A random priest is no more a subject matter expert on religion than a random baker is on bread or a random barista is on coffee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not a good comparison in the slightest, priests have to go to graduate school in their faith and are expected to be experts in their religion. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 02:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Grad school and "experts in their religion" =/= subject matter expert. It has a very specific meaning in the context of wikipedia. Also note that not all priests go to grad school and not all bakers and baristas don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3, an obviously WP:USERGENERATED niche wiki, clearly non-RS. VickKiang 02:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3. User-generated wiki. Not really sure that this is necessary, but we're already here, so might as well state the obvious. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Invalid RFC as per above and oppose this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Newadvent.org

How would you evaluate the reliability of Newadvent.org?

• 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

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Newadvent.org

• Option 3, once again I'm a little surprised that we have to have this discussion but there are thousands of cites to it... Newadvent.org is a fansite published by Kevin Knight[31], it primarily contains links to catholic sites (links currently on the homepage [32][33][34][35][36][37]), material scraped from other sources and original translations or transliterations of public domain texts. Clear fringe non-expert WP:SPS with almost no uses as a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Framing a journal of a well-respected institute of the University of Notre Dame as being among Fringe catholic sites is frankly nowhere close to reality. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  My apologies, you are correct that they are not all fringe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Newadvent.org is a primary source repository that is generally reliable for the sources that it lists. As I and others noted in the previous botched RfC that Horse Eye also started, this is a website that peer-reviewed academic review says is reliable for those sources. Are those transcriptions faithful to the original text? Yes; the articles are straightforward, word-for-word transcriptions of the originals, per that review, though there are occasional transcription errors. The primary content on the website is as accurate as the original sources themselves and, much like how we can link to Wikisource, it's perfectly acceptable to link to New Advent in citations as a courtesy link for people who are unable to access the original print source themselves. The statement that New Advent primarily contains links to fringe catholic sites is plainly false; it's a reputable repository of primary sources that's commented on positively in an academic review for its fidelity to the original source material.— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  I will also note that the way that the academic source describes the site being built is that there was a large volunteer project to faithfully transcribe the content. Volunteers would perform the transcriptions and then email them to Kevin Knight, who would review the emails and publish the transcriptions. There's evidence of the basic level of editorial controls in the project, which is no surprise given the accuracy of the site's transcriptions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  So the source says that it exists and has user generated content as its most usable feature? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have previously offered to email you the source so that you can review it yourself; your question comes off as confused. The source says that the content on the website is a faithful transcription of several public domain works and states that the source is highly recommended as a scholarly reference material, which seems like a ringing endorsement of its reliability for the purpose of representing the the text of public domain sources online. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Lots of things are 100% usable as scholarly reference material which are not WP:RS... They're not the same standard. We don't need to use a SPS for public domain content, we can just cite the public domain content (when its WP:DUE that is). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  We could, and we could avoid providing any sort of digital link to the content, but we are more than free to add convenience links to our citations so that people can view the content for themselves. The guideline notes that [w]hen offering convenience links, it is important to be reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original, without any changes or inappropriate commentary. And, based upon that academic source's review of the website, I'm more than reasonably certain that the convenience copy is faithful to the text of the original copies. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  We already established that it wasn't a true copy "there are occasional transcription errors" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  The way that the academic source describes this, verbatim, is that a few minor typographical errors were found in several articles. If you think that the presence of a few minor typos is enough to make links to the website verboten, I think that we're just going to have to agree to disagree. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Either something is a true copy or it isn't, thats a binary... Something can't be "kind of" a true copy it either is or it isn't and if it has even one minor error it isn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  That is silly. Considering that the transcribed sources were on paper and pre-electronic, an OCR or hand-transcription of a source is naturally going to contain some slight variance from the original writing, whether in orthography or typesetting or a regional spelling. That is something that is a natural side-effect of recopying, no matter what the method. If I photocopy a document and it has a little bit of gray cast to it, is that an imperfect copy? Did it somehow corrupt the semantic meaning of the text? Does the gray cast or a minor error prevent it from being a "true copy" If it didn't, why protest about it? Elizium23 (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thats what "true copy" means, and no a gray cast would not necessarily prevent one text from being a true copy of the other unless if destroyed the legibility in some way. This is why we use experts/mainstream academia not some guys on the internet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Is your position that a scan of a document, where a single word is illegible, should never be linked to as a convenience link? I'm a bit confused here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  I was not involved in crafting our current standards, those who did clearly do mean "true copy" in that every word can be verified because thats the wider wikipedia standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are trying to fix a generic problem - the use of poor sources in Wikipedia articles on religion - by selecting particular examples. This looks like a poor source to be using, for the examples given, but would deprecating it actually solve the problem? As noted above, people are citing Wiki's (already excluded by policy) and the like. What is needed is a better appreciation of what sources should be used, rather than a list of ones that shouldn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Why do you keep bringing up deprecation? They advocated for Option 3, not Option 4. Silverseren^C 17:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I did/am doing the same with military history/aviation, those two areas seem to have the biggest issue with this problem. I doubt deprecating it would solve the problem, part of why I am not advocating for it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of exactly how the source ends up characterised, I remain unconvinced that this type of 'evaluate the general reliability of...' RfC is an effective way to deal with endemic poor sourcing. How exactly are those who have been using such sources supposed to learn about the outcome of this RfC? And more to the point, how are they going to be persuaded to assess sources better for themselves? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are trying to fix a generic problem - the use of this particular RFC question format - by selecting particular examples. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• WikiProject Catholicism has been notified of this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Invalid RFC. This is a dumb question, as New Advent is a library which has transcribed and republished Public Domain sources. We cannot pronounce on its "generally (un)reliability" for any purpose because that depends on the purpose and context. New Advent hosts ECF writings, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and other really solid sources which are reliable for their scholarship on Sacred Scripture, Catholic Tradition, and historical Canon Law. In context, these writings can be quite reliable, but this RFC strips the citations of their contexts and requests that the community pass judgement in the form of a number 1-4. That is a wholly invalid question, and this sort of nonsense should be nipped in the bud, rather than wasting a lot of our time on trivial pursuits. Elizium23 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  So, once again, it is rehosting other sources. Those other sources may be reliable, but there's no reason to use this website that is rehosting them. We should have references aimed at the original sources. Silverseren^C 18:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 We shouldn't be using rehosting sites as references in the first place. We should be citing the original material. Just because someone decided to put a bunch of public domain religious content into their website doesn't then make them a source we should be using because of it. Silverseren^C 18:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  How do you feel about using the website as a convenience link in citations? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think only an actual official hosting source should be used, such as Newspapers.com or ProQuest for news articles or official journal depositories such as JSTOR. This source is not one of those, as they deal in material that literally anyone could host. So it's basically just a random person's website, which isn't the sort of thing we should be using for convenience links. Silverseren^C 18:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Invalid RFC per Elizium23. While I understand Silver seren's concerns about hosting cites, especially ones that do not have the same academic filters as JSTOR etc., NewAdvent contains a mixture of materials that vary from strictly RS to non-RS. Of course, if these non-RS contents were being cited with with great frequency, it would be an issue. But as far as I can tell, NewAdvent is used almost exclusively for RS and appropriate primary-source material. The website provides a service that neither citing WikiSource nor Wikipedia can provide with regards to Catholic Encyclopedia and other critical resources to Christianity-related topics in its sorting, and using it as an alternative to linking WikiSource for certain things is entirely appropriate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Invalid RFC (Summoned by bot) – Per Elizium23. The discussion about rehosting services and whether they should be allowed is a reasonable and worthwhile one, but this is the wrong venue for it. (Sneak preview: it's like Wikisource in that way, which has similar transcription procedures and proofing, and which we don't allow in a citation, but we do allow as a convenience link.) This is about one website. Option 3 as a second choice. Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Knight does more than rehost, see the notice "Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight."[38] which appears on many of the pages of historical content. So we aren't talking public domain content in general, we're talking about specific amateur revisions of public domain content published by Kevin Knight on his blog newadvent.org. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Right, which is why this is only a speck in a much larger discussion. This larger question cannot be answered here. Mathglot (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The larger question hasn't been asked in this RfC so the point is moot. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Invalid RFC Agree with Elizium23 and Pbritti. "This is a dumb question", also silly. Wikisource CE is largely taken from New Advent. If it's so unreliable, what's it doing in wikisource in the first place? Perhaps OP would care to review all the sources in wikisource. If wikisource is not to be used then a lot of contributors have wasted a lot of time. Manannan67 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

If editors added something to Wikipedia just because it was on wikisource and not because it was WP:DUE then yes they have wasted a lot of time, see Wikipedia:Wikisource#Using Wikisource as reference "Inclusion of text in Wikisource does not automatically justify mentioning of it in Wikipedia, because of potential differences between what Wikisource includes and what Wikipedia includes." None of that makes the RFC invalid BTW. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You miss the point, which is if it's reliable in the first place, not whether or not it's DUE. Please don't change the subject. UC Santa Barbara hosts NA as part of thier research databases.[39]; One can access NA and cite it through the LOC Researcher and Reference Services Division [40]; Oxford University: "A treasure trove of information on the Roman Catholic tradition. The encyclopaedia and documents sections are especially helpful."[41] to name a few. Manannan67 (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Please assess the source based on wikipedia's standards, see WP:RS and more specifically WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence." See WP:UBO. Manannan67 (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This is an WP:SPS, so those rules apply. You also have not presented widespread and consistent use so your evidence is incredibly weak, high-quality reliable sources do not appear to use New Advent (note that none of the cases presented so far are uses, they're reviews or entries in directories). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not my evidence that "is incredibly weak". "High-quality reliable sources" in fact host a link to provide their researchers with access New Advent. "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same." Knight publishes articles by Kirsch, Maas, Thurston and others. We're not talking "vanity press" here. "Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable... While many self-published sources happen to be unreliable, the mere fact that it is self-published does not prove this. A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved....Self-published sources can be reliable, and they can be used." WP:USESPS Manannan67 (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hosting a link =/= using in an article or similar. SPS can be reliable, when published by an expert... Which Knight is not, he is a self-professed amateur. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Also if "Knight publishes articles by Kirsch, Maas, Thurston and others." then how is this an invalid RfC? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

How is it self-published, when he's not the author of any of the CE articles or an Ante-Nicean Father? Manannan67 (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Every single page says "Copyright © 2021 by Kevin Knight" or a variation thereof. Their "Contact Us" page says "New Advent is maintained by a Catholic layman named Kevin Knight."[42] Not really sure how you can argue its isn't a personal website, blog, or group blog. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

CE is in the public domain. In the US no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. I seriously doubt Knight pretends to a copyright of either CE or Schaff and Wace; and nobody cares about the rest of the site's content. Therefore, it can be selectively used. Manannan67 (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

We aren't discussing the reliability of a hundred year old encyclopedia we're discussing the reliability of Kevin Knight's personal website Newadvent.org. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a reason to suspect that Mr. Knight is changing or amending the original documents hosted on his sight? Does he provide his own commentary or analysis? Or does he merely host transcriptions and scans? Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the attribution "Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight."[43] is attached to many of the texts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Blueboar: As I noted above, the academic review posted above characterizes the website's transcriptions as straightforward, word-for-word transcriptions of the originals, with important keywords hyperlinked to other referenced articles within the work. My understanding of the extent of "revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight" is the insertion of hyperlinks within the text. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3/4. I don't understand the people saying this is an invalid RFC - we can, of course, use a non-WP:RS as the link to a host for something that is otherwise reliable, provided they generally respect copyright, but it is necessary to establish that each link is individually reliable and accurate, since a non-RS host provides none. This is basic WP:RS. The site itself is clearly not a reliable source and therefore cannot confer any reliability itself, which is an important thing to establish - republishers and churnalist sites and the like are not and have never been RSes themselves. Furthermore, at a glance there are possible copyright issues, which could put it under WP:ELNEVER (in which case we have no option but to bar citations to it - of course, people can still find something there, and, if they think it is accurate and an RS, cite that document, but they shouldn't link to a potential copyvio as part of that, in the same way that I might look up an academic paper on sci-hub but could never link to it or cite it there.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 per Red-tailed hawk. It seems like it's mainly a large collection of public domain texts, and all the examples I checked appear to be translations by experts (e.g. [44] appears to be Knox Bible, [45] "Second and Revised Edition, 1920 Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province", [46] by some professor who has other project compiling ancient primary sources [47]). I see no evidence presented that the content is corrupted or distorted. There also doesn't seem to be anything else besides those public domain texts, except a very Web 1.0 homepage with external links. The submitter's !vote dwells quite a bit on those external links, but they seem completely irrelevant to me. Who could ever cite this website for an external link? I'm also open to just closing this RFC with no action or as an Invalid RFC, because it might not make sense to evaluate a compilation like this as a single source. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 Reliable as a hosting cite for otherwise reliable material, unreliable for self-written material. --Jayron32 13:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Jayron32 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• Invalid RFC as per above and oppose this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3. I checked some of its articles and couldn't verify this elsewhere. This isn't a reliable source, not if you ask me. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• option 1 as a source repository, option 3 otherwise Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I would say that the issue here is likely mal-formed citations. Except for rare occasions, we should not cite Newadvent.org as a source, but rather we should cite the original document … and then link to Newadvent as a courtesy link. This may require amending the citations, but the material will then be properly cited. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Military-Today.com

How would you evaluate the reliability of Military-Today.com?

• 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

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Military-Today.com (also MilitaryToday.com) is an amateur military group blog run by Andrius Genys. This is one of those non-expert SPS that I wouldn't think would ever need to be brought here but shockingly it is used on more than 300 articles. It is not possible for a reasonable editor to mistake this source as reliable, its clearly internet gutter trash. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3:=, he is not an acknowledged expert, so it does not pass SPS. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Unnecessary RFC this is obviously a non-reliable site. Nothing changed since Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 330#Military Today. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  If there were no current cites to this source it would be unnecessary, unfortunately it is cited on more than 300 pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  What exactly is this RfC supposed to achieve? If articles are citing sources that have already been declared unreliable, doing the same thing again isn't going to change anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think we've had an RfC on this topic before, the previous discussion was informal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but what is an RfC on this specific source supposed to achieve? I very much doubt that the people using such sources check through noticeboard archives before using them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  I will get scrub a dub dubbing in a serious way if the RfC ends in 3 or 4. Once there is no backlog of old uses then new uses can be quickly identified and neutralized. In general I think the preferred outcome of this sort of RfC is that editors present strong supporting evidence of the source's reliability which allows us to continue using it widely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Seems to me that you are looking for permission to do something you don't need permission for. If the source is crap, scrub it. If someone seriously disputes that it is crap, maybe we'll have something worth discussing here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Seems to me like you don't know what you're talking about... Thats how you end up at ANI with a half dozen people calling for your head (they won't get it obviously because the source is crap but ANI isn't a fun place to be dragged even under the best of circumstances)... Been there... Done that... This way is much less disruptive to the project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Unless someone presents a good case to the contrary, Option 3. As far as I can see this appears to be essentially a high-class blog. I suspect there's lots of good info there, however it does not appear to satisfy our reliability standards. We should not be citing hobby websites just because they happen to look good. Whatever information we're pulling from there should be cited to a better source. Alsee (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Unnecessary RFC per HEADBOMB. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Unnecessary RFC per WP:SOFIXIT. You don't need permission to make Wikipedia better. If someone complains, direct them to read WP:RS and explain to them why the source is not a reliable source. --Jayron32 13:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that it is clearly unreliable, and would be in favor of deprecating. But I also understand the perspective that a RFC should be unnecessary. Go ahead and strip out the references in the hundreds of articles which cite it and give the explanation, in detail, that the source has been definitely deemed unreliable at RSN. Yes, somebody may complain at ANI regardless; I've seen many examples of exactly what you apprehend. And some editors will undoubtedly back up the complainers for various specious reasons. Don't worry about it. Banks Irk (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Unnecessary RFC per above --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• Unnecessary RFC as per above and oppose this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Deseret News independent of the LDS Church?

This was discussed briefly on this board over five years ago, and it didn't quite reach a consensus. Since it's been a continuous source of discussion in LDS areas, I thought I'd bring it up again.

I'd like clarification on whether or not, and to what extent, Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church.

Some options:

• A) Deseret News is completely independent.
• B) Deseret News is independent for everything except exceptional claims.
• C) Deseret News's independence should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
• D) Deseret News is not independent.

––FormalDude (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey (Deseret News)

• D. They aren't now and never have been. I would never use them for info about the church or for BLP but they should be fine for uncontroversial non-BLP stuff. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• D nope. I actually didn't know this even as a member of the Church myself, although looking at the article which says it's owned by "Desert Management" which is a subsidiary of the Church shows me that it is not independent (which was also shown below). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• E None of the above. See the discussion below. There's more nuance, and any discussion about this must take into account the division between regular editorial content (which is fairly independent) and the Church News insert (which comes directly from the LDS Church). ~Awilley (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• E per Awilley. The non-church content seems fine --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• E as per above. Whether they are independent is irrelevant unless it is related to the Church. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• A as per discussion below, if we are only considering news, its independent. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Deseret News)

Are there specific reasons why we need to determine whether it is 'independent'? And if so, what do we mean by that? Clearly, given the circumstances, it would be rather surprising if Salt Lake City media didn't take into account the faith of a large proportion of its readership, even if formally unconnected with the LDS Church. Generally, the more appropriate question to ask here would be whether it meets Wikipedia standards as a reliable source - something which often depends on context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude, per the About Us page, the Deseret News is owned and operated by the Deseret Management corporation, which is a for-profit subsidiary of the Church. As per additional information from its' mission statement page. Deseret Management, which also owns and operates other newspaper and television subsidiaries throughout various parts of the United States, appears to support the mission and goals of the Church while not necessarily being beholden to the Church for "marching orders" about how they report or what they report. It may also be worth noting that KSL, owned by the same subsidiary of the Church, is also the local NBC affiliate station, which may apply to other television networks in the United States that are owned by that subsidiary. I believe that some general leaders of the Church do have seats on the boards that direct such subsidiaries, but that doesn't automatically mean that the individual TV stations or newspapers do not have sufficient editorial or journalistic independence. Is that helpful at all? --Jgstokes (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Right now RSP says there's no consensus on the independence and that makes it unclear when assessing if sources meet WP:GNG, specifically in deletion discussions. There is already consensus that it's a generally reliable source. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jgstokes: This explanation on their editorial independence is what I find to be most helpful. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The date on that is "2000" and the author hasn't worked there in more than a decade. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• I mean, the RSP listing at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Deseret News sums it up pretty well: it's an ordinary presumed generally reliable NEWSORG for non-Church topics, apply caution for Church topics. Has someone been trying to use it as a third-party source on Church-related topics? - David Gerard (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• We already have an RSP listing noted by David Gerard above, which seems to sum up the situation well. I don't think we need any changes from that. --Jayron32 12:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Independence is only necessary when we want to establish notabilty and therefore comes into play in AfD discussions. That is the only time when we are concerned about independence. It is not required for verifiability or reliability and such sources can be freely used in articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

What does independence have to do with notability? Are you perhaps getting independent in the WP:RS sense and independence in the "independently notable" sense confused? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Coverage is required to be independent of the subject to count towards notability guidelines. There are, however, contexts other than notability where the independence of a source could directly impact its reliability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thats a third option, but context wise that seems less likely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Summoned by a post at the WP:LDS wikiproject. I think the RSP listing linked above by David Gerard sums it up well and needs no modification. It's reliable for local news. It's a bit too close to the church to be used as a sole source for any exceptional claims. And the Church News insert is not independent, as it comes directly from the LDS Church, so it should be considered a primary source.
  The only times I personally have seen this come up is in AfD discussions about the notability of LDS temples or newly appointed "general authorities" (church leaders). My own guideline is that if the article is in the Church News insert, that alone is not enough to establish notability, but if it's actual Deseret News editorial content then that's independent enough to be considered 3rd party. ~Awilley (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• Agree with those saying the existing RSP listing covers it and nothing more is needed. I've used Deseret News many times when working on articles about Utah-related politics or Utah-based companies and I haven't noticed any problem with it. Once or twice I think I in-text attributed it when the subject was the LDS Church itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  RSP states that there is no consensus on whether the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church. In order to align with what you're saying, I think the RSP should be updated to option C instead. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• While I don't really edit LDS topics I have used Deseret News for local and environmental topics. At the very least I would consider it to be like any other local paper. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Independent sources is the explanatory essay about independant sources in reliable sources. I would point out that when it comes to news media, the essay is never actually followed.

First, respected public broadcasters, such as the BBC, are of course owned by governments but are expected to report independently. The logical implication of the policy is that the BBC could not be used as a source for UK politics.

Second, major media is always owned by someone. NBC was owned by GE, which is a major defense contracter, from 1986-2013. Does that mean we could not use it for coverage of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc.? Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, now owns the Washington Post. The Thomson family, in addition to having a media empire, also invested in travel, oil and gas, and department stores. There's often a connection too between news media and internet and phone providers, and of course the entertainment industry.

Third, celebrities typically work for entertainment companies which in turn are owned by corporations that own news media. For example, the Pirates of the Caribbean film series, starring Johnny Depp, was produced by Disney, which owns ABC. Does that mean that we cannot use ABC News as a source for Depp's well publicized libel trial?

I would like to see a clarification on the policy before spending much time on this type of RfC.

TFD (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Religious organizations present a distinct problem because their existence is predicated on "universal truths" that are objectively neither universal nor true... They are organizations that by definition deal in what journalists would call untruths. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Your comment seems to ignore the practices of journalistic standards and editorial independence. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Awilley and Guerillero: For clarification, I intended the scope of this RfC to be solely about Deseret News' news coverage, not including their Church News supplement which is obviously not news nor independent. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• @Canadianr0ckstar2000: You're misinterpreting the meaning of the Deseret News news section. I'm not talking about the content from Deseret that is news related rather than Church related. Obviously content that doesn't talk about the Church is independent of the Church. I started this RfC to ask about their news department, which produces Church related content. I'm asking because their news department seems editorially independent and unbiased as compared to their other departments like Church News which is directly affiliated with the Church or their religion section which often comes up short in terms of neutrality, as no distinction is made at WP:RSP. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Understood, I still maintain A. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC (The Daily Dot)

What best describes The Daily Dot's reliability?

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

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

• Sigh… none of the standard options fit… so I will say Option 5: Use with in-text attribution Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure this RfC is helpful. It looks like the discussion in the previous section was already reaching a consensus of something like 2 but the more difficult question is what additional considerations apply. Most people were arguing that it should be seen as a biased source and used with attribution where something is contentious. I think DFlhb's suggestion that we treat it similarly to the WP:DAILYBEAST is probably sensible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• I just want to post here to point people to my analysis and conclusion in the section above (here). I think an "option 2 with required attribution" would be fitting, similar to User:Blueboar's option 5 idea above. It's quite unlikely that the Daily Dot would be the only source reporting on something, so other sources that don't require attribution should be preferred; and the Daily Dot shouldn't be used for notability evaluation since many editors have pointed out in the discussion above that the Dot frequently covers inconsequential topics or Daily-Mail-like gossip. DFlhb (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with others that our typical options don't work well here. In fact I think this is a good example of why the typical options list and the color coding in general aren't very helpful. The current RSP listing says DD is reliable for internet trends. It doesn't say it's green for comments about people or politics etc. Of the options we have I would say #2 because that is where I think most sources like this should fit. Are they likely to tell an outright lie? No. Are they likely to skew what they report in a way that could lead to a false impression or that leaves out signiticant context? Yes. Are they likely to amplify a claim based on their own bias rather than based on a good analysis of the evidence? Yes. So all of these things point to a clear "use with care" type warning. However, the other issue is how much weight, if any, should be given to claims that we only find in DD? I would say just about none. I mean I'm fine with using them as a source for an otherwise mundane detail, "Ford released the new Palomino on March 5th". Should the source be used for a controversial claim ("Ford is hiding a safety defect in the Palomino"), heck no. Would I consider a claim made by another source more valid because DD echos it? No, they are trolling the web for clickable content. Thus my biggest concern is why would we give them any weight rather than are they messing up the actual facts. Springee (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 for politics. I think it makes sense to split this out by topic. The Daily Dot seems fine when they write about so-called internet culture, which seems to mostly consist of reporting on a viral TikTok video or the like, with a few paragraphs of analysis, which they do quite often, with a special focus on customers and employees at fast food restaurants and food delivery services, for some reason. (All of these examples are from the last four days!) It seems harmless enough. But when they cover politics, their status as a clickbait-y aggregator really becomes a problem: they still focus much of their reporting on Twitter randos and so on, with very little actual reporting, and in their analysis they seem much more interested in taking cheap shots at conservatives than at accurately capturing events. And, as User:DFlhb pointed out in the section above, even when they get things right, any non-obvious facts would be covered in other sources. So it seems useless to include them as a source for political topics. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 in general, biased and WP:RSOPINION for politics. I see no evidence above of serious failed fact checks or blatant propagandistic shenanigans like doctored images or mixing fringe POVs with factual reporting (please feel free to inform me if I missed something of this form), but it does appear to be biased and opinionated for politics, so it should have a disclaimer similar to Jacobin, Reason etc that it is an opinionated/biased sources and treated as such (attributed where usable when biased/opinion, not for weight). Andre🚐 19:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Reason is a publication with years of history and plenty of good work to it's credit. This is none of that. It's mostly a farm for click bait stories. It's crazy that we would consider this crap source more reliable than Fox News (which isn't meant to be a compliment to Fox). Springee (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm open to changing my view on it, but I haven't seen any evidence, unlike copious failed fact checks and misleading statements by Fox. Andre🚐 20:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

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

  I agree with this read Andre🚐 20:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

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

• "The woman [who alleges she was drugged and raped by Cliff Maloney Jr.] came forward last year shortly after the Daily Dot published an article recounting accusations that Maloney sexually harassed women connected to Young Americans for Liberty, a conservative political organization." Atlanta Journal-Constitution (5/8/2022).
• "The caller also provided police with a username, which belonged to a website's administrator, which they claimed belonged to them, suggesting that the caller's alleged motives and identity may have been fabricated, according to the Daily Dot, which first obtained a copy of the police report [about a swatting incident involving Marjorie Taylor Greene]." Independent Online (U.K.) (8/25/2022).
• "[Rep. Barry] Loudermilk gave an interview to a local Georgia radio station on the day of the riot [i.e., Jan. 6, 2021]. The Georgia Republican was still in an undisclosed secure location as he spoke. His comments would not become widely known until The Daily Dot uncovered them months later." Business Insider (6/16/2022).
• "Unjected, a dating app and the "largest unvaccinated platform" online, apparently left its entire website's back end unsecured. Security researchers, working with Daily Dot reporters, reportedly accessed the site's administrator dashboard, which had been left entirely unsecured and in de-bug mode." National Law Review (8/4/2022) (also covered in other sources).
• "The Daily Dot recently discovered that one of the companies the state authorizes to provide campaigns and political action committees (PACs) with campaign finance software is owned by an open and avowed White supremacist who still praises the Confederacy." Florida Politics (9/16/2022).

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

• Option 1.5/2 per Rhododendrites, but weakly oppose Option 1 due to additional considerations below. The Daily Dot evidently appears to be clickbait, and most of its culture articles are superficial, reporting on popular social media videos with limited analysis. This, IMHO is echoed in its political coverage, which per the previous thread is somewhat exaggerated and leaves out context. However, I couldn't find specific examples in which The Daily Dot has written a piece that is blatantly misinformation or disinformation, but it is far from the quality of a newspaper of record or another site with high-quality editorial control. Numerous pieces previously provided are also marked as opinion pieces, which are irrelevant, such as 1 2. Also, while the label of the coronavirus piece could be slightly opinionated, IMO it is not misleading to the point of damaging reliability. Further, the previous articles definitely show that The Daily Dot is WP:BIASED, reflected by the current RSP entry Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. Due to that The Daily Dot frequently covers controversial and possibly exaggerated content that possibly violates due weight, IMO attribution should be recommended, and better sources should be preferred when possible. VickKiang (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  > reporting on popular social media videos with limited analysis

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

• Option 1. WP:RS is not based on whether editors personally disagree with a source's conclusions (which seems to be the only arguments made above), but on its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; and nobody has presented any secondary sourcing calling the Daily Dot's reputation into question, just things they personally disagree with. We don't perform WP:OR here, we rely on what other sources say - you have to demonstrate its reputation, not just a laundry-list of articles you take issue with. And as far as its reputation goes, the source does have decent WP:USEBYOTHERS. See eg. [48][49][50]. The first two particularly stand out because the authors relied on the Daily Dot for part of their classification scheme, ie. its reputation for accuracy - when covering politics, note - was central to their research. [51] is similar, presenting an article and comparison from the Daily Dot to justify the basis of their research. That's (generally) the way we'd expect academic papers to treat a WP:RS. And coverage in other sources generally covers it the way we'd expect them to cover another RS, eg. [52][53] --Aquillion (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  Quite a few of these are paywalled, but this one, which you describe as standing out, lists Media Bias/Fact Check the exact same way it lists Daily Dot. Yet, MBFC is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. I don't think a pile of links to largely paywalled sources that (at least some of the time) refer to them in a way they refer to unreliable sources really establishes their reliability.

  Also, the question of bias needing attribution for WP purposes is separate from the issue of factual accuracy; and the site's strong bias is quite obvious. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think you need to read that source again. They aren't listing them, they're using lists from them (and three other places). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

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

• Option 1. I just looked at TDD. A story about an incident at a Walmart ends with "The Daily Dot reached out to ...." Another about a TV weatherman using scenes of an animal caught in Hurricane Ian rising waters states "The Daily Dot reached out to WINK News...." There's one about a former employee exposing JCPenney's secret loss prevention surveillance, with "The Daily Dot reached out to Han via TikTok comment and JCPenney via email." TDD does what journalism is expected and supposed to do.
  As for opinions, and its coverage of politics and culture, WP:BIASED states: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject... Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, there has been no evidence presented that The Daily Dot engages in misinformation or that they have purveyed factually innacurate information and refused to correct it, all publications that report on politics are biased to some extent and the only way to avoid this would be to delete all Wikipedia articles on politics. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2/Option 5 from User:Blueboar above. Per User:DFlhb's analysis in the section above The Daily Dot does not appear to draw a clear line between opinion pieces and factual reporting, so they need to be treated like a WP:RSOPINION source with in-text attribution. Their building articles around random social media posts (as shown by User:Korny O'Near's list of articles about fast food tiktok's in this section and the quoted tweets mentioned by User:DFlhb above) raises some pretty serious concerns both around WP:BLP and about its usability for establishing WP:NOTABILITY/WP:WEIGHT. As its editorial standards appear to have gone down somewhat recently, maybe it would be possible to establish a rough cut-off point, prior to which it could be used with less caveats. Siawase (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 highly biased on numerous fronts, not a source that should be generally used on Wikipedia. Bill Williams 18:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. I don't see any evidence that suggests TDD is anything but a generally reliable source. In fact, the examples of TDD following (what should be) accepted journalism practices has left me more confident of their reliability than I had been previously. Woodroar (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2/5 per Blueboar, Bobfrombrockley, and others above; mixes fact and opinion and hence the rules on opinion pieces apply. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Terrible RfC as per all the varying views offered above, which are valid answers to the question but not the options presented. The only one I would be wholeheartedly against is option 4. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - this RfC is due in part to a (now-archived) list I created of what I saw as false or misleading wording in some Daily Dot articles; you can see the list, and some discussion about it, here. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2? It depends - this RFC for generic labelling doesn’t seem applicable, it would depend on the specific item in question. The DailyDot collection of pieces range in areas and sourcing and value - many are by staff writers with good rep and giving a factual reporting, many are more question pieces or about non-fact topics. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Google Maps

Is google maps a reliable source for the contents of the article U.S. Route 19 in West Virginia? Note that it is the only source on the page, everything there is putatively sourced to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's break it down, on what information is readily verifiable by Google Maps:

• "US 19 passes through the limits of the cities and towns of Bluefield, Princeton, Beckley, Oak Hill, Fayetteville, Summersville, Flatwoods, Weston, Jane Lew, Clarksburg, Shinnston, Worthington, Monongah, Fairmont, Rivesville, Westover, Morgantown, Star City, in addition to the smaller communities of Kegley, Spanishburg, Flat Top, Ghent, Cool Ridge, Shady Spring, Daniels, Beaver, Johnstown, Hico, Heaters, Napier, Letch, Ireland, Ben Dale, Homewood, Kitsonville, Hepzibah, Meadowbrook, Enterprise, Arnettsville, Georgetown."

• Passes verification

• "Between Bluefield and Beckley, US 19 has been largely supplanted by Interstate 77 and the West Virginia Turnpike. Between Prosperity and northeast of Canfield, the route serves as a major southwest-northwest artery as Corridor L of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). It is along Corridor L that it crosses the New River via the well-known New River Gorge Bridge. Between Canfield and into Pennsylvania, the route has largely supplanted by Interstate 79."

• Nope. There's two things here, the supplanting by the interstates, and Corridor L. The latter can be cited with [54] (Which I found by going through the excruciating process of copy-pasting "Corridor L of the Appalachian Development Highway System" into Google)

• "Aside from the four-lane limited access Corridor L, US 19 remains largely two-lane rural road with numerous curves outside of major cities."

• Passes verification

-- Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

For me google maps doesn't distinguish between cities, towns, and smaller communities it just says names. How are you verifying those characterizations though google maps? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you serious? You look up the municipality. The official website of the city/town/village will indicate as such. Google maps literally allows you to see this by clicking on the name of the place. Are you being a screwball intentionally, or are you just daft on how to read a map? This is getting fucking old; you've made your WP:POINT, you are wrong, and you will not overturn decades of precedent. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

If you need to use another source then you can't verify it from google maps. It seems you have realized this already. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Well by all means, be an ass and blank entire sections or articles because you can't be bothered to do a basic search on Google but you can type a fucking essay on all the noticeboards and talk pages. You are literally the definition of dead weight, and I don't care if I get scolded for saying so. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This dead weight appears to have more main page creations than you... I contribute in a wide variety of ways and across a wide variety of topic areas. Also note that you would still have WP:SYNTH issues, that basic google search solves nothing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not playing this game, I have 10 TFAs and nearly 100 GAs. You are wrong, end of story, let me know when you have two decades of experience in the matter, or a basic understanding of maps. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I respect your contributions, but nobody is infallible. You were wrong about Google Maps supporting the given text and you're likely wrong about other things as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Then challenge what I laid out above wrt the article text, if you're certain. I think you'll find I'm more infallible than you think. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken you laid out that the text can not be verified by using google maps. I agree with that. Also note that ActivelyDisinterested has also challenged you to support part of the text using google maps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

And this would not be an issue if you didn't blank the text, a large part of which was adequately sourced. Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you blaming me for noticing an issue? Thats a little bizarre, I didn't create the issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am blaming you. I want to make it absolutely clear, you are the tempest in the teapot. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I hope in time you will come to realize that your anger was misplaced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also I want to make it clear that I respect your BLP contributions, but you are in unfamiliar territory. I would never try to understand or question the sourcing on those articles, because I'd have no idea what I'm arguing against. You are in that position now, and you and your two tag-alongs will hit the same wall. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

RSN is not unfamiliar territory for me, I have well over a thousand edit here. I don't think I've seen you around here before though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Because I know what I'm doing. Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't follow, are you saying that those who regularly contribute to RSN are incompetent? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I am saying you are with regards to this matter. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

If sometime you feel like supporting those WP:ASPERSIONS with diffs you are welcome to, until then that is the last unsupported personal attack I'm going to tolerate from you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That sucks, cause it's not the last time I'll call you out for your misplaced optimism. Calling a spade a spade. I don't need diffs, I'm not playing the dumb drama board game. Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's all be civil and remember aspersions are covered by WP:NPA. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition to HEB's comment I have an issue with the third section. remains largely is a judgement of the editor viewing the map, I struggle to see how that's not OR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I concur. Along the same lines, numerous curves implies (at least that's how I read it) that the number of curves is numerous in contrast to an "average" road of similar type, which would also be OR. Ljleppan (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm. This is a bit of a funny one. I think that it's reliable, in the sense that I rely on it all the time to get me from point A to point B when I'm driving. On the other hand, I know of quite a few mistakes in my local area - the park I walk my dog in has the wrong name for one thing, there are significant buildings missing entirely, and it has an imaginary bus station on a road near me which is nothing but a bus stop. I'm a 'level 7 local guide' on Google, and it's forever asking me to check facts, but it rarely actually does anything with the updates I send it (to the point where I've pretty much stopped contributing). I feel like it's at least partially WP:UGC, from that perspective. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Following the line of Girth Summit, I think it is reliable, although there are a few hiccups here and there, which are easily fixable. Roads4117 19:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  You've missed my point: I rely on it for use in everyday life to get around, but that's because it's exceedingly convenient, not because it's particularly reliable. I'd place it several ranks below something like the Ordnance Survey in terms of actual reliability as a mapping source. I don't really imagine that it would get the names of major cities wrong, they'd have picked that up by now, but they do make lots of small-scale goofs which would make me question it as a source for local information. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  You know that you can edit those small mistakes. Roads4117 19:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  You don't see how that makes it worse not better in terms of WP:RS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed - 'fixing' an unreliable source with 'local knowledge' (ie OR) is the opposite if verifiability. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Google maps is (at least in part) user generated content. I might be more forgiving for more official map sources (e.g. ordnance survey data), but wouldn't count Google Maps (or similar) as a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see why not, for purposes of some basic information. Most of the GMaps errors are in the UGC, but GMaps itself is mostly not UGC. Is it a reliable source for the coordinates of some local HVAC company? No. But for direction of roads, intersections, etc., then I'd say yes. Let's not forget that Google Maps includes satellite imagery (which is certainly not UGC) and, for many places, streetview. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  One other things I've wondered about Google map, how do we deal with the fact is always being updated? The details could be corrected when they are stated, but a new set of images or street view data would change all that. Is there anyway to easily see archival map data? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  A satellite picture isn't a reliable source though. Neither would a picture taken from a moving vehicle on the street be a reliable source, thats the same for me as it is for google. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  You are not considered a reliable source, I think we can trust Google to reliably publish the satellite images. Not sure I'm sold we can then cite those images without OR. Certainly it seems that the line into OR has been crossed on some cases. If an editor interprets a map, beyond what the map clearly states, that still remians OR if another editor checks the map and agrees with the interpretation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  We can't use images as sources for that sort of complex fact even from the best of publications, I can not use a NYT picture of a squad of soldiers in Exemplestan holding Ex-15 rifles to source the fact that the Exemplestani military possesses the Ex-15. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  ECHO echo echo echo - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is a good point, why can we use images of map as references when we can't use images as references. As per my comment below maybe this is better discussion at VPP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Given that Google Maps has an editorial process for changes to its maps, we can trust that in most of the world it will be fairly accurate and receive timely updates. It is also used as the base map for thousands of graphics in news articles/reports by outlets we deem reliable sources (e.g. the BBC) as well as governments, so would that reliability not trickle down? When used properly and paired with an official government map (which may not be an option in some regions, so we must toe carefully around our Western-centric bias and allow for some cases of GMaps-only use), Google Maps has been deemed appropriate for writing neutral but informative route descriptions for road articles. I myself have used it across all of my road FAs, which have been promoted in the past 5 years. SounderBruce 22:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Where can we read about this editorial process? Absent other information, knowing Google, I bet it's some weird spam-filter AI rather than anything even vaguely approaching what we'd call an "editorial process" in any other context. Ljleppan (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  It seems it's been deemed acceptable by the project that is involved in writing those articles, and even if it is there appears a significant WP:OR problem in its use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• This seems extremely analogous to the prohibited practice of deciphering what military decorations a person has from their press photos. Perhaps there's some exception to be carved here for the very high level information, but I'm struggling to see how exactly that would be phrased. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment There appears to be two discussions going on that don't appear to directly relate to Google maps, but rather the topic of using maps as references. First there appears to be a discussion about the use of language when citing maps, at least to me and some others there appears to be some WP:OR going. Even given WP:MAPCITE details are being include when citing maps that are not directly stated by the map. The second discussion appears to be in regard to MAPCITE and using maps altogether, and the fact we can't use images as references but we can if it's a map. Neither of these discussions are about the reliability of Google maps directly, and I wonder if it wouldn't be a better idea to start a discussion on WP:VPP on the use of WP:MAPCITE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Do people actually take WP:MAPCITE seriously? That essay's primary author has been indeffed for almost a decade is an SPA who rarely edits outside of the roads/highways topic area and it doesn't exactly reflect current consensus, policy, or guidelines (it doesn't even seem to accurately reflect them for the time it was written). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    • @Horse Eye's Back: That is not correct, please see edit summary at [55]. Please strike. --Rschen7754 15:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
      • Nothing in that edit summary says that they're not the primary author, do you have the editing history for User:Moabdave/maps? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
        • Look at the history of User:Moabdave/maps and come to your own conclusion. --Rschen7754 16:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
          • Thank you, struck. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
            • I hope you are not calling User:Moabdave, an administrator, a SPA. --Rschen7754 16:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
              • I am, their editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of article. Its not a judgment or an insult, its just reality. Do you have a better term I should be using for editors whose histories are this one note[56]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
                • It comes off as an accusation of bad faith, and you should either retract or have it processed accordingly. --Rschen7754 16:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
                  • How? SPA is explicitly not an accusation of bad faith. As I said if there is a more accurate term for editing only within a very narrow area I will use that instead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
                    • A user who appears to have an apparent focus on a narrow set of matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to question whether their editing and comments appear to be: neutral; reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas; aware of project norms; not having improper uses of an account; and aimed at building an encyclopedia. Seems to be incompatible with being an administrator to me. --Rschen7754 16:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

                      I could think of at least one other who would fail foul of that, but being unable to be neutral about a subject you're passionate about is just human. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

                      • Administrators have the same biases, blindspots, peccadillos, and issues with advocacy and personal agendas as any other users. As was pointed out to you at ANI the last time you tried this trope, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#unrelated if you don't remember. I don't mean to cause any offense and I've given you multiple opportunities for you to identify a more accurate term to describe a user who appears to have an apparent focus on a narrow set of matters or purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

                        The term is "subject expert" or "savant". Not all editors' primary focus is posting on noticeboards, some of us do something called "contributing". - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

                        Well stop posting outside article space so much, you only have 47.8% mainspace edits. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

    I was quite surprised when I came across it, as I'd agree that it doesn't seem to reflect current consensus. But it does appear to have been used by at least part of the community, so further discussion could be useful to clarify the communities opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• I think people are asking the wrong question here… rather than asking “Is it reliable?” we should be asking “What information is it reliable FOR?” Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • ^^ — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• And in addition to Blueboar's comment, people need to read the top of this page. Reliability is based on source and the context in which it is used. Most commercial maps (Google included) are perfectly reliable for content like "Road X connects from point A north to point B then curves west to point C, passing through D, E, F etc" because a)those are all easily verifiable from the map, and b)verifiable if you want to actually go to the place with a compass and do it yourself. There is no interpretation here. Floydian's comment further up where he talks about content about 'supplanted' is *not* information veriable from a map, as it requires interpretation and information that is not included on the map itself. To use a similar issue with sources that we often come across in media articles where the work itself is the primary source: "In Top Gun the pilots engage in a game of volleyball" - verifiable from the primary source the film. "In Top Gun the pilots engage in a homoerotic game of volleyball" - not verifiable as it requires interpretation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I cannot see any case where Google Maps could be used as an RS outside of something involving OR by a WP editor. Using a map to try to prove something existing or not is beyond our scope. Masem (t) 13:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

But we're not using maps to say something like "there's a fruit stand that appears on weekends", we're using it to say "this road exists, it goes from A to Zed, it's number is 4682, it is known as John Street, and it passes through Nottingham Forest." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

And how many curves it has in comparison to other roads, and the relative size of town it's passes through... -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Where is it comparing its curviness to other roads? "Numerous" is not "numerous compared to". - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Its still a judgement call, how many is numerous? Two turns? Four turns? Ten turns? Forty turns? Four hundred turns? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"Numerous" is not "numerous compared to", so how are you defining numerous? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I use the definition at WP:ANAL. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

As you're the one so insistent that noone touch you work, the definition is very appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

As maps are a primary source for that type of information, that also seems like trying to avoid notability facets then. Given that in the case of the OP post article that only Google Maps is used to show this road exists, that doesn't make it notable. Masem (t) 15:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

US Route 19 is certainly in newspaper sources, in 2 minutes I found [57][58]. I'm sure there are ones for the West Virginia part of the route. As in the case in such long routes, they get split into different articles. --Rschen7754 16:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

In terms of significant coverage of Rt 19, neither of those sources cut it. Are there likely sources for Rt 19 that are significant coverage? Sure but they aren't likely to be part of an online search, but we should have those articles in place before jumping to expand out the route by GMaps from that. Masem (t) 16:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

May want to revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coventry ring road/archive1 then, it was promoted last week and with Google Maps citations. --Rschen7754 16:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that we will be revisiting dozens of FA and GA, thats a good thing not a bad thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Masem Are you saying the "research" being done when looking at a map (a map which, for the sake of argument, we have no reason to doubt the accuracy of) and saying "route X intersects route Y" or "city X borders an ocean" is more "original research" in the spirit of WP:OR than the "research" being performed by someone summarizing a dozen different sources on a single subject? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Its more that those types of statements have no bearing on the notability of an article, and to try to use a map for statements that attempt to demonstrate notability like "it is the only road that can access this national park" would be verging on OR. If you already have a notable road or other geographic feature through other non-map, reliable sources, then its fine to use the map to support what roads it crosses and other nearby features. But we have the added problem here where only GMaps is used as a source, which is not sufficient for notability. This is equivalent to using a movie or TV show itself as the primary source - we can use it for fundamental statements that are non-interpretative about the work, but not to create statements of interpretation in WikiVoice, nor sufficient alone as a source for notability. Masem (t) 18:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I wholly agree that Google maps (or even maps in general, for the most part) do not establish notability. However, the main issue here is not one of WP:GNG, but rather whether Google maps can be used as a source for describing the route of a road. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have no opinion about any of the specific issues, but WP:BLUE is likely relevant to this discussion. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  I never understand arguments stating BLUE, BLUE is only for text that's not going to be challenged. If there's an ongoing discussion it has been challenged, and so can't be BLUE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  The kind of "challenge" most policies are talking about in the context of sourcing is verifiability. Objecting to unsourced content can/does happen apart from challenges to the verifiability of the claims being made. i.e. "I object to unsourced content even if it's verifiable" rather than "I do not think sources exist to verify this". It's a [relatively -- maybe I'm just getting long in the tooth on here] new trend to go around removing uncontroversial statements for the fact of being unsourced, without basing the removal on some other policy like NPOV (or expanding the meaning of controversial to "anything I see that's unsourced"). Maybe that's where we're headed, but it's hard to have these conversations working with multiple understanding of what constitutes a reasonable "challenge" such that it triggers WP:BURDEN. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  There are multiple ways to challenge something, one can remove it, one can tag it, and one can bring it up on a talk page or at a noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  And yet you manage to use the most abrasive of the four as doctrine. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  I actually incorporate all four into my editing doctrine as I assume most do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't appear you point is about BLUE itself, but the larger discussion about how to handle unsourced text. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  WP:BLUE: "Note that this essay should never be cited in a dispute about whether or not a certain fact is true or not and should not be considered a replacement for the core content policies. Since all material that is likely to be challenged must be cited, if someone else is challenging material as false or misleading, then it is by definition likely to be challenged. Remember to assume good faith and consider that something that may be obvious to you may not be obvious to them, and that many things that "everyone knows" turn out to be false." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  "If someone else is challenging material as false or misleading, then it is by definition likely to be challenged." - You interpret policy like a Southern Baptist does the Bible. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  You understand thats a quote from an essay, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  Its @Carchasm: you appear to believe interprets policy like a Southern Baptist does the Bible (that sounds like either a personal attack or uncalled for religious bigotry BTW). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  i assume you meant to tag someone else here? I'm not in this discussion - car chasm (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Carchasm: You wrote the part of the lead at Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue[59] whose author Floydian is trashing, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  It would've probably been best to just ignore the bible statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  I probably would have too if it didn't appear to be based on my editing history, thats the last religious group whose topic area I edited in (see Talk:Billy Graham#Was Billy Graham actually an Ordained Baptist Minister?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm really hoping that's just a coincidence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  I am too, but its an extremely specific coincidence especially since a search for the phrase "... like a Southern Baptist does the Bible" doesn't appear to indicate that its a notable or popular saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  It was coincidence, I haven't looked at HEB's edit history. What I meant is that you take a small piece as "gospel" and completely ignore another as mere suggestion. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  Essays are not gospel, they are in fact suggestions. What in our policy or guidelines am I ignoring? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  From the gospel of WP:BURDEN: "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't remove material which I believe is verifiable, but at the same time I also am not going to go picking through a mess of OR and trying to source each sentence... Much better to start from a clean slate. Saying something is OR in the edit summary fulfills the obligation of BURDEN you've brought up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  Encouraged not required. And can we keep the religious hyperbole to a minimum. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  oh gosh, yeah that was me. Don't worry, I won't take any biblical allusions as an attack on me, the main purpose of that paragraph was really just to reassert/remind that WP:V still exists. I'm generally more in the WP:NOTBLUE camp anyway as I mostly edit articles about philosophy, where things that sound obvious or uncontroversial to a layman (e.g. is the moral option the one that produces the best outcome?) are often the subject of centuries long debate, even if it seems at first like the point being disputed is pedantic.

  To summarize my own view from writing that addition, I'd say that if both editors agree that the sky is blue, one shouldn't insist on citing it or removing the claim without a citation. If they're e.g. fighting over whether "cyan" or "blue" is a better term, or if it's actually blue or only appears blue, that should need a citation. I think in this particular case WP:BLUE (which is only an essay anyway, not policy) wouldn't really apply either way, if the citation of Google Maps is verifiable (appears the same on google maps) then it's cited, and if there are reasons anyone raises to suspect Google Maps might not be accurate enough to trust *in general*, then that's not about the blue sky either. - car chasm (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would have thought if something is being challenged as being referenced to an unreliable source, or subject to OR then it is properly challenged. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

How is this even a question. GMaps is strictly a primary source. There is no "author" of any GMaps location, in fact it contains zero published evaluation or analysis written by a human; everything is computer-generated from geocoordinates, satellite imagery, database entries, etc. Therefore, we can never use it as the basis for any article and it does not contribute to notability considerations. As for its reliability in this case: beyond the fact that that article is the epitome of unmaintainable NOTDATABASE-violating roadcruft, how do we decide what level of zoom is satisfactory for listing what localities it passes through or which roads it intersects? The citation in the article doesn't even have a link to whatever resolution the editor used, so none of that material can be validated in the extremely straightforward way that primary-sourced info requires. Typing "US route 19 in West Virginia" or "US-19 West Virginia" in GMaps gives us a pinned location on the road "Patton Ave" or "ALT 74", neither of which is mentioned anywhere in our article. This is because Google has actually has dropped us in the middle of North Carolina, even though the sidebar still claims it's "US-19 West Virginia". So that's an immediate fail in verification. If this is the reliability of GMaps for places in the US, how much worse is it in the rest of the world? Here's one answer from our own Reference Desk archives. Now if we click on the OpenStreetMap image in the article, we get this map, which actually is of the correct route, but it contains absolutely none of the details dumped in the article aside from that it appears to go through Beckley and Morgantown. We have to zoom in before several of the major intersections or any other towns even appear, but at no point is there anything remotely approaching the level of detail contained in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This page does not determine if sources are good for making an article notable or not. It only determines if sources are reliable for verifiability. Huggums537 (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment Just from my own experience here, but at least where I live (west coast of the United States) Google Maps is extremely inaccurate. To the point that OpenStreetMaps is almost better. A lot of that probably comes down to the fact they get their road data from years old Tiger data and updates only occur on a hyper local, irregular time frame if at all. For instance there's places where there was a historic road from the gold rush that was paved over in the 50s, but is on Google maps for some bizarre reason. Yet on the other hand they will add a road for a new subdivision before the area for it has even been cleared. So it's essentially worthless outside of an extremely small area of shopping malls in the center of town and some main artery roads. No way would I use it as a citation in an article.

Also, from what I've seen Street View images are increasingly being farmed out to third party photographers. So there's major issues with using it as a source IMO. Although I will grant that there's probably zero chance of a professional GIS company uploading fake images to Street View, but it still creates a scenario where the images aren't actually coming from Google even if they are being hosted on Google's site. They have a policy for it here if anyone is interested. From that it looks like they give certain venders a "trusted badge" and then review their images as needed. How often that is or how they do the reviews is anyone's guess, but I don't think they should be used as source of information regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• To answer the original question, as of this version Google Maps was used to source the junctions and mileages, which is basic map information. I see zero problem with this. As to the broader question, the issue with maps is when editors make the map say what it does not say. --Rschen7754 23:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  The reference appears to be incomplete, no URL has been supplied to direct to which map has been used. Certainly just from looking it's not possible to get distance, which is the other peice of information it's used to support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Actually looking at Google maps I'm failing to see any data about distances between junctions, how are they being calculated? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I personally never have done this but I believe it is some sort of tool, not just using a ruler. --Rschen7754 00:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  So it's not something the map shows, but something the user has to do with the map? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Looking at one junction in Morgantown, Walnut Street, where does the information North end of US 119 south overlap; south end of WV 7 west overlap come from? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Reading the map and an understanding of Concurrency (road). --Rschen7754 00:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  .... But where in that map is that data shown? Not what does that information mean. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry I've made a mess I've this, I should have just replied in one big comment. I'm unable, especially as no URL has been given (see the multiple error messages the template is producing), to verify the data and have tag the reference accordingly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  [60] - this is basic map reading of seeing where the fancy 119 and the circular 7 go. (Different zoom levels may be needed to see them, as at more zoomed out levels labels are omitted.) --Rschen7754 00:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  In what world does "basic map reading" include using an obscure GMaps tool to reconstruct mileages or knowing how to describe road junctions using DOT subcommittee jargon? JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Do we consider "concurrent sentences" obscure legal jargon? Or "concurrent lines" obscure mathematical jargon? Even without that article, wikt:concurrent clearly applies here. --Rschen7754 03:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  As below Wikipedia is not just America, this is not BLUE. And a wikitionary link to Concurrent doesn't say anything about Concurrency in road routes makes me wonder if you understand WP:V at all. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Using a measurements system not shown directly on the map it absolutely WP:OR, it's even OR by WP:MAPCITE standards. Using a ruler built into the app is no different than using a standard ruler on a physical map. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  So 7=WV7 and 119=US Route 119, which is written on the map where? Before answering bnonits not BLUE, Wikipedia is not the US alone, and the US route numbering system. This is basic being able to look at something l, and seeing what's not there skills. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I have read the comments but I do not wish to get into a further meaningless argument about whether the average person can read maps or not. (Though I will point out that the same icons appear in the same line in the table.) --Rschen7754 04:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Cool I do not want to get into further meaningless arguments on what is obviously WP:OR. (Though I would point out that if you're using a ruler to make measurements against a map, it definitely is). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  No it's not, maps have scales for a reason. Just like books have words for a reason, and it's not OR to read words in a book. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  So scale shows distances to within parts of a mile between two points (as chosen by the editor) without any other need for measurement? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  But you can't measure the height of the font in a book and then put that in the wikipedia article, thats very clearly OR. Nor could I measure how thick a book was and put that on the page. Nor could I do other analysis like asking a word program to find every instance of "apple" and then adding to the article "Wuthering heights includes 37 mentions of apples." If you want an exact imagery example if we have an article on an orchard I can't go on google maps and count how many apple trees they have, that requires less analysis than measuring distance too. For a notable house I can't go on google maps, count the garage doors and add "there are five garage doors" to the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  ^This. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'd say no. If we could cite it at all it would clearly be WP:PRIMARY, but there's no indication of how it does its fact-checking or what sort of editorial controls it has. It can be linked, of course, but I feel that citing it directly to support any statement is inevitably going to be WP:OR. Also, the subtext to this question is probably about notability (ie. should we have articles on roads that are cited entirely to Google Maps, which exist on a map but have no further coverage whatsoever) - which is something I've noticed about a lot of recent WP:RS questions. The underlying issue here is that Google Maps is full of errors and isn't really structured like an RS, so if it's the only source we have on a road, there's really nothing we can say about that road with any certainty, meaning that we shouldn't have an article on it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  For those claiming that Google Maps is not reliable - any concrete examples of errors? --Rschen7754 20:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  Read my top-level comment above. JoelleJay (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  China is considered an outlier because of Restrictions on geographic data in China. What I'm looking for are actual instances of errors (more than an unusual search term not being located properly) showing that there is a systemic problem with Google Maps, to the point that it cannot be trusted like other secondary sources (remember, no secondary source is perfect). Think the Fox News RFC a while back, where citation after citation was presented. --Rschen7754 20:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  An "unusual search term" like "US-19 West Virginia"...? If Google can't even get the correct state for literally the road in question -- and even claims the site actually is in the correct state -- I can't see how it can be reliable "in general". And what are you talking about, "other secondary sources"? Google Maps is a primary source, point blank. JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  Simple way to find examples: look at the mapping for a place that you know well and compare it with reality. For me, that means missing buildings, buildings that don't exist, paths marked as roads... and in rural areas it's often a liability. Or look online: Washington Post, more WP, BBC, more BBC, ABC in Australia, BBC on Australia, comical BBC one (of many), another Australian one, with a company response: "The various types of data found in Google Maps come from a wide range of sources, including third-party providers, public sources, and user contributions", from India. The examples are limited only by enthusiasm to find them. EddieHugh (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  As has been explained, the GIS data is the primary source, and Google chooses what to put in the map from that. Thus, secondary source, just as most other maps would be. Also, when was the last time that you typed in something like US 19 West Virginia into Google Maps? It is a strange term because US 19 is a multi-state route. I liken it to typing in "Interstate 95" in Google Maps - what does one expect to find for a 3000 mile plus route?

  I also question whether some of those opposing would support even maps from Rand McNally as a source. --Rschen7754 23:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  That is not how secondary sources work. Per our own policy: A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. A computer-generated depiction of raw data with whatever filters on it is still primary. No matter how many changes are made to bare stats, or pictures, or music, if they don't include discussion of the original thing they are not secondary sources for that thing. And unlike physical published maps where every page is manually assessed, there is no "author" verifying the accuracy/quality/appearance for any specific place on GMaps, let alone giving their analysis of it. Citing a page in Rand McNally is plainly different from citing the exact coordinates of where a Wikipedia editor was accessing a tool at a particular time, although if a subject can only be sourced to Rand McNally maps then it also shouldn't exist as a standalone.

  Using GMaps to list every intersection and town on a particular road is exactly like using your ApE plasmid editor to list every restriction enzyme site in a gene. Actually, it's even worse than that with all those third-party distance measurements; it's more like listing every feature that gets highlighted in your ApE editor due to it already existing in your personal annotated feature library. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  The author is the cartographer. Satellite imagery I won't argue as being primary, but the actual road map layer has been analysed, evaluated, and has reinterpreted the raw data into a presentable navigational aid. It has taken physical evidence and presented it in an understandable (and perhaps even conceptual) way. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  LMAO who is the cartographer of "US-19 in West Virginia" on Google Maps? Someone writing code that automatically renders database queries into something we can visualize is no more an "author" of any particular query output than someone who developed a contrast transfer function model or Fourier shell correlation algorithm is of a particular cryo-EM reconstruction. The developer of an Instagram filter that autopopulates Disney eyes on all the faces in a picture isn't a secondary source we can cite for how many people are in that picture... None of these examples are publishing their commentary on the specific subject; they aren't even personally interacting with it. JoelleJay (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  It does count as "synthesizing facts" though. Huggums537 (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  In the same way a calculator "synthesizes facts"... JoelleJay (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but that is a very rudimentary example of "synthesizes facts". Also, it sounds desperate that you are now comparing GMaps operations to those of a calculator. Which one sounds more plausible? GMaps operations "synthesizes facts", or GMaps operations are comparable to those of a calculator? And, which sounds like it is trying to convince someone? Huggums537 (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also that's not how this works. Someone needs to prove they are reliable, against whatever reason others bring up. fact-checking or editorial controls is something that needs to be positively proven. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well, Coventry ring road just passed FAC, and it uses numerous Google Maps citations. Are you saying that this was a mistake? --Rschen7754 19:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think I'm as stridently against Google Maps as some, although I'm swayed by the argument that it's a primary source. My main concern is the obvious OR that is happening in concert with using Google Maps. And I note, happily, that all distance data in that article is referenced to proper sources. As to whether it should have passed or not, I'll let someone else comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know, it seems like the distances are sourced to Google Maps. (Which must be the method that is being used to determine distances, which I didn't realize earlier). --Rschen7754 20:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Your right I missed that there was distance data in the junction table, so it does contain OR. Although there is also this link in the junction table, so maybe there measured it on that map using finger lengths. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  What are your views on WP:CALC and why you believe (I assume) it would not apply to this situation? --Rschen7754 21:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  No WP:CALC wouldn't apply, not even close. If a source says 10 and 10 then you can say 20, if a source gives no numbers at all you can't make you own. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  But this [61] gives me the number 3.0. Why can't it be used? --Rschen7754 00:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  A list of GPS coordinates chosen by the user, I'm struggling to understand why you don't see that as a problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  And when I do go to that link it gives me a distance of 2.3, so it fails verification as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hm, 2.3 is what I meant. I don't see "a chosen list of coordinates" as a problem, provided that the precision is not overestimated. In other words, 2.3 is fine, but I would be skeptical of 2.30. --Rschen7754 03:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  User generated content isn't a problem! I give up, this is just nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 07:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Aren't most of our images "user generated"? Aren't we taking it on good faith that the images are taken at the places people say they are taken? The conspiracy never ends. --Rschen7754 00:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  You can't use an image as a source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  A caption appears in the article next to the image. Shouldn't it be cited? --Rschen7754 00:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  If a caption appears next to an image it should have a reference for that caption. If you know of any instance of that reference being an image please just let me know, I'll remove it and replace it with {{citations needed}} tags. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  If challenged or likely to be challenged it is required to be cited, the more complex the description the more likely it is to be challenged. "US President George Bush" as a caption for an image of George Bush is unlikely to be challenged, a caption that says "US President George Bush wearing a Gucci suite and Ralph Lauren shirt contemplates doing a summersault but decides against it" is almost certainly going to be challenged and as such would require a WP:RS from the get go. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  The whole thing I am getting at is that at some point we have to trust our editors and that goes to the coordinate selection. Who would know that the picture that I took of Route A was actually of Route B? Who would know if I was faking citations that were from a book? And besides, anyone (who can read a map) can verify that yes, that coordinate point is at the interchange specified. And that satisfies WP:CALC. --Rschen7754 01:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  • I'll bite, why does Google Maps show the old Rockingham County Courthouse in Wentworth, North Carolina, as the current location of the Superior Court (it's a museum now, and been one for several years), when the superior court judges assigned to that county actually meet in the new Rockingham County Justice Center about a mile down the road? Why does Google Maps list the historic county jail building across the street at 1011 NC-65 as Apex Bail Bonds at 1091 NC-65 (1091 NC-65 is actually the building Google Maps thinks is 1075 NC-65, right next door). I drive past these buildings probably four times a month. The jail is an abandoned county office with a billboard advertising Apex Bail Bonds placed on the front yard of the house at 1105 NC-65 (the other neighbor). Is Google Maps generating business locations based off of reading signage text in photos without cross-referencing, I don't know, actual property records? This particularly problematic, since some roads editors like to landmark routes by saying they pass certain historic/"important" buildings at various points, using Google Maps of course (see Special routes of U.S. Route 76#Chadbourn–Whiteville business loop). -Indy beetle (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    • But is a paper map going to be any better? Especially if an editor doesn't own the latest copy of the map, or doesn't go out and dutifully buy the latest copy every year, or the map is not detailed enough? And if someone is writing about Bail Bonds or most other individual businesses in a road article they are obviously trying to pad. --Rschen7754 19:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

      Of course it would be better, readers could just look at the book and actually verify the text of our article was accurate on the date of the map's publication, even if it's no longer true. With GMaps we have no assurance that a human has actually validated any piece of info at any point in time, and a reader would have to access archived versions of it to even see what the editor saw in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

      Archived versions are the norm for any web based references, as data on websites can change at a whim. But it is certainly easier to download Google Earth and scroll through the historic imagery than it is to go out and find the 2022 road atlas in five years time to verify the information attributed to it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

      Not to take this tangent too far, but that's the sword that cuts both ways. The ability of Google Maps to update more-or-less continuously means that errors can be corrected pretty much at any time, and the most current version will thus have possibly corrected an error that existed in an old version; a 2022 print atlas with an error will have that error forever. It's the nature of the type of medium we're working in here, there's a tension between permanence and accuracy, and I find where we can't have both, accuracy is preferrable. --Jayron32 16:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

      Just FYI that free downloads of google earth haven't been available for a while now and free web based users can not access historical imagery. Because you already had it downloaded you're grandfathered in, but if you ever switch to a new device it won't be grandfathered in and you will have to pay for those premium features. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

      This is not true in the slightest. Google Earth Pro is free for all desktop computers, and is in the process of being replaced by a web-based version.[62] Even if it did cost money, so does a newpaper subscription, a scholarly journal, or a paper map from the local automotive/corner store. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

      The free web based version you just linked to does not host historical imagery. Kind of funny you're telling me this isn't a thing, I just changed devices and now pay Google a few hundred more a month than I did before. I guess I should call them up about that or something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

      Probably, since it's been free since January 2015. Might also want to update the Google Earth article as well. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  • And just in the same county, why is the marker for the historic Settles Bridge listed on at some person's house on a street to the north, when one can clearly see "Settle Bridge Road" cross over the water to the south? I think a map made by an actual human being would label the only actual bridge in a five mile radius as the bridge. (And before you say, well, that's the closest real postal address, the historic Mebane's Bridge in the same county has no such mislabeling. This implies just sloppiness.) -Indy beetle (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  A somewhat parallel discussion is ongoing here regarding whether databases are primary and whether they can be used to establish SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Not reliable per what I and others have outlined above. The citing of Google Maps is near inextricable from the OR it is constantly employed in across roads articles, but that is a slightly different matter which applies more generally to how we use all sorts of road maps, and should proably be the subject of its own discussion. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Not reliable per all the comments above. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Rschen7754 Why on earth have you placed a new comment middle of the discussion? Please move it to a sensible position.I see what's happened, the OG template has broken the string of comments.
  As to you comment no we don't trust our editors as sources. Anyone would know if you fake a citation that's the whole point of WP:VERIFY. I can go to a source and verify if it confirms the details that use it as a reference. I can't confirm this with the references to Google maps without doing my own WP:OR to see if it confirms with your OR. User generated GPS coordinates are WP:UGC and what is being done with them goes far beyond WP:CALC and into WP:OR and that isn't rhetoric. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Not a basis for notability It's an utter embarrassment that anyone would think we can have entire articles sourced to just a map like this. Sure it may be reliable or verifiable that one can trace the route of a road on a map and name its intersections, but that's not something we should have articles for without sources with actual substance. There are far too many crap road article like this. Reywas92^Talk 02:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Reywas, I'm confused by your vote, and statement? You say the source may be reliable, but made your vote about notability?? Are you voting for the source as reliable for verifiability? The vote is not about notability... Huggums537 (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Reywas92 would you please clarify your vote? The poll is about the reliability of the source, not the notability of any article, and not even about whatever the underlying basis for notability of any article might or might not be. I understand your view is that there are "crap road articles", but the vote isn't about any articles, or their notability, just the reliability of a source. In other words, could the source be used to verify facts inside articles that aren't crap? Huggums537 (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Reliable - recognizing that there are errors inherent in all sources. --Enos733 (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Reliable for the purposes of describing the physical nature of a road and measuring distances or taking coordinates. Generally reliable for labelling of current route numbers, road names and points of interest (the "undated" issue in a misnomer, as satellite imagery from old dates can be verified with Google Earth). Not a basis for notability, and in almost all cases should be considered a primary source (as opposed to published maps which are secondary sources). Most of the discussion has derailed entirely on a separate tangent and the examples provided are very poor articles, and not a reflection of the proper use of this resource. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Not a basis for notability and not reliable for the amount of info in the article at hand. External tools for calculating distances, determining the municipal designations of localities on the map by googling them, choosing some arbitrary zoom level as the threshold for which places even show up on the map (and using that for what we cover in the article), and specialized terminology for describing the route of a road all go beyond the simple functions allowed by WP:CALC. And especially in this particular case where not only is there no link to the GMaps coordinates used by the editor, reasonable search terms for the road, like "US-19 in West Virginia", return a completely different road. JoelleJay (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• It's fine for the purposes of identifying things like route descriptions, where the road goes, towns it passes through, etc. Describing routes and calculating distances and the like are basic map reading skills, no different from paper atlases etc. It does not require extraordinary knowledge nor complex interpretation, it's just reading a map. Google maps, while it does contain errors, like ALL sources do, has not been show to do so at a rate which calls their reliability into question, and they have a clear corrections process which adds to its reliability. I'm rather agnostic on the matter of notability here; highway pages are not targets for commercial activity/spam/advertising nor are they likely to be used as attack pages or to be targets for controversial information, nor are they used for pushing or promoting a controversial viewpoint, nor are they BLP-based articles. It's rather boring, banal stuff, and as such a low priority for WP:N concerns. --Jayron32 14:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  towns it passes through It should not be used for this. AFAICT there is nothing on GMaps that indicates what municipal level any location is; in fact, when there is any info on a place at all it is sourced to wikipedia. Plus, which municipalities and roads are visible on the map is totally dependent on the level of zoom (and on what's around it -- even very large cities are eclipsed by proximity to larger cities) so either we're expecting editors to be extremely thorough in documenting these things at the most granular level, or we're listing items at some arbitrary depth that may or may not contain relevant info. A published RS map dedicated to a specific area will have been validated for all its content by editors and will contain a degree of detail that reflects expert consensus on what is important to show.

  GMaps depends on user error submissions for any one area to be "updated" or "corrected"; since this varies heavily by population, internet availability, app engagement, priority, local government, etc. we should absolutely not be giving it a blanket rubber stamp of reliability for even basic details. JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  "AFAICT there is nothing on GMaps that indicates what municipal level any location is;" - irrelevant. The municipal level and the passing of a route through a place are mutually exclusive.

  "when there is any info on a place at all it is sourced to wikipedia." - Google gives precedence to Wikipedia for displaying information about existing places. That isn't used to validate the existence of that place nor its location.

  "either we're expecting editors to be extremely thorough" - yes, that would be comprehensiveness, and required in any article with multiple sources with differing opinions for them to weigh them accordingly.

  "or we're listing items at some arbitrary depth that may or may not contain relevant info" - Again, this is routine. Every list on the encyclopedia has some "arbitrary depth" to its scope.

  The rest off your comment, I 100% agree. Google should be used alongside a reliable published map, but the lack thereof shouldn't prohibit its use. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  What I'm saying is that there is no way to tell from the map that a route is passing through a "town" or a "smaller community"--a distinction nevertheless present in the article in question--or some other locale, or that all the relevant towns are mentioned. And because of this it's not possible to be "extremely thorough" or to reflect only DUE info. JoelleJay (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  You're right, but you're dealing with miniscule details at that point. Is the vase oval or round? The ideal solution is that we are linking to that municipality, and it indicates that it is a village or city. This is one of those cases where I feel WP:BLUE applies, as it is easily verifiable to the reader that the municipality is an XXX. -- Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• I would say Google Maps is generally reliable although there can sometimes be errors. However, I would use caution in using Google Maps alone as a source in an article due to these possible errors. Google Maps is generally fine to use as a reference for the physical surroundings of a road when using the satellite imagery and road map together. However, since there can sometimes be errors in the maps, a good idea would be to use Google Maps in conjunction with another map issued by a DOT or in conjunction with a route log in order to reference where a route goes since the DOT maps/route logs are less likely to have errors and are an official government source. Dough4872 17:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• I would say it depends. Google maps is reasonably reliable for very basic information (such as citing which towns a road goes through), but there are limits. It is not as reliable when the information grows more complex. It should not be used for calculating precise distances, for example. Case by case judgement is needed, and if there is any question, find a better source. Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• I'd say it's not reliable for much. The labels for businesses, parks, roads, addresses, and so on are sometimes incorrect. A surprising amount of material on Google Maps is user-generated content. I've even noticed cases where the course of roads is incorrect, or at least out of date. (This problem seems to be more severe for minor roads than major roads, and more severe outside the US than in the US.) We certainly shouldn't have an article sourced only to Google Maps. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Officially declaring reliable per my comments above, with the proviso that certain features that are more heavily reliant on primary source data i.e. Google Street View and the satellite layer are probably not. All sources will have an error at one point or another, even the "gold standard" of newspapers and books. --Rschen7754 00:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I am concerned that some of the comments are trending towards anecdotal experiences which are not attempted to be elaborated upon here. --Rschen7754 16:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Since people want to make this about notability: not a basis for notability only because every road is listed. I think some maps that are more selective about what is included can show notability, but Google Maps is not one of them. --Rschen7754 20:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• Reliable in general for coarse information, maybe not for fine detail like buildings. To respond to some comments above: Google Maps is not entirely computer generated, nor is it true that there is no author. The Geo team at Google employs hundreds of humans (thousands, according to this article) and they jointly are the authors. Of course computers are used; that's true of all modern cartography and has considerably enhanced its accuracy. The argument over whether it is a primary or secondary source just shows how useless that distinction is. The argument that we can't use it because we know of errors would also eliminate most newspapers, most books, and most academic journals. A few things that can be done with a map such as measuring the road distance between two points are probably on the wrong side of the OR boundary, but coarse information like "Brussels is 300km northeast of Paris" is fine. Maps are not really different from books; one is allowed to read them and report what they say. And always remember that there are plenty of independent maps where challenged data can be checked. Zero^talk 01:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Reliable—Zero0000 sums up the situation very intelligently. Jayron32 also sums up the situation quite well. Maps can be read and the information on them digested and put into prose just as our editors would read journal articles, books and news reports to digest and output prose in our articles. An advantage of Google Maps over paper maps is that the scale is variable, and when writing the route description for a highway, a good editor can link to the driving directions on Google (thus giving the starting and ending points for a line on the map they've followed, akin to giving the page range in a book) and have both the overview and some fine details to buttress the detail from a fixed-scale paper map. The satellite view is also appropriate for general landscape details. Imzadi 1979 → 02:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Reliable to confirm up-to-date routing and landmark information that would otherwise take years for a paper map to properly convey. Preferable to have a government-produced map paired with Google Maps to confirm accuracy, but generally Google is accurate enough for its use in U.S. road articles. SounderBruce 07:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Unreliable per concerns raised by numerous editors above and per own observations. Note that until 2015, anyone could edit roads and junctions on Google Maps, there was no proper editorial oversight – edits carried out by an established Google account were usually approved (it's still the case re. editing certain features Google Maps!). — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Occasionally reliable, but does not show notability. I suppose it could be used absent anything else if the content is important, but it is not at all a great source. Useful perhaps to buttress other sources with something quite accessible to the reader, but otherwise quite a poor source choice. Appearing on google maps does not add credence towards either WP:Notability (for articles) or WP:DUE weight (for content), and that's before the questions of user-generated content arise. CMD (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Unreliable. I've noticed various issues that are off within my neighborhood and apart from coordinates, I would not say Google Maps is a reliable source. Apart from my terrible experience with GMaps in Arizona before, Google Maps' verification process is slow at best, and unreliable at worst. A lot of erroneous "edits" to Google Maps end up making it past the radar because someone was lazy and didn't verify the edit. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• unreliable/primary source GMaps is useful in streetview/aerial mode in verifying articles, but that requires interpretation and thus cannot be used to source articles. The labels are a mixture of mechanical copying and crowdsourcing and aren't reliable. Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

A quibble - Being a primary source does not make it unreliable… it just limits HOW we use it.

The errors and crowdsourcing are a different matter, and might make it unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

My opinions are split over different aspects of it. The aerial views and Streetview are primary sources; the labels are not, but they are unreliable. Mangoe (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Blueboar. All sources are primary for something, and so being primary does not inherently mean unreliable. As @Mangoe has pointed out, all secondary sources have primary aspects, and reliability is a separate issue. Huggums537 (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• I personally think it depends on where you are going to use it. As for what editors have said in their previous comments, I get the feeling that Google Maps is not reliable in the United States, however when looking at Google Maps on satellite view in the United Kingdom, it is relatively reliable. Roads4117 (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Generally reliable as any other map, and notability is not only irrelevant to discussions on this page, but also mostly irrelevant to discussions about sources themselves. We should limit discussion about notability to actual topics, not any individual sources. The question about notability is: Do we have a notable topic worthy of an article? The question here is: Do we have a reliable source worthy to verify factual statements? Very different subjects. When we start asking weird ass questions like: Could a source like this ever possibly contribute to the notability of an article? Then we've really gone off the rails and lost sight of what our objectives are because this amounts to the same thing as asking esoteric questions like; "Do all sources contribute to notability?" or any other number of philosophic ideas and questions that really do nothing but confuse things. Huggums537 (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Thats not an esoteric question, its a very basic one and the answer (as every single wikipedian should know) is no. See WP:NOTABILITY Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It isn't a real question, but a rhetorical statement just like the question about whether a source contributes to notability should not be a real question if what we are trying to determine is the reliability of a source. Asking the question about if a source can support a whole article has no bearing on if that source can support stated facts within an article. See WP:NNC Huggums537 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone asked that question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The question of notability has been wrongly asked several times in this venue since what we want to know for the purpose of this discussion is if the source is reliable or not. If we are bogging the discussion down with worries about whether primary sources can support the notability of articles when everybody already knows the answer anyway, then we are just wasting time, energy, and most importantly, my patience... Huggums537 (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Not the question of notability... The question of if a source can support a whole article. I don't see a single person asking that question but you clearly said they did, were you speaking in the hypothetical about something that had not actually occurred? Also note that based on this discussion there does not appear to be agreement on whether google earth is a primary or secondary source, most of the roads editors appear to be arguing that its secondary and they're the ones using it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me if we phrase it as I did earlier in my comments as "contributes to notability", or as I did later as "supports a whole article", or as Floydian stated it below as "indicating notability of a subject". It all means essentially the same thing, and saying nobody asked it in a certain specific way is just being a nit picker, and splitting hairs so please just get all the way off my back and leave my hairs alone. Also, It doesn't really matter to me which side of the fence anyone falls on about the source being primary or secondary either because that also has nothing to do with the source being reliable or not, but I choose to refer to it as primary in the discussion just for the sake of easement because it is an inescapable fact that all sources are primary for something so the source will for sure be primary no matter if it can also be used as secondary or not.

There's like 4 separate discussions occurring here, and I pity the closing admin that has to determine which one.

1. The reliability of Gmaps for discussing the route of a road, including the places and intersections and terms like "numerous"
2. The ability of Gmaps to indicate the notability of the subject
3. The use of Gmaps as the sole source for an article (or Route description)
4. The use of Gmaps solely within the context of U.S. Route 19 in West Virginia

Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You've been making an assertion that no one has had the good sense until now to challenge, Horse Eye's Back. At the time you started this whole discussion, the three paragraphs of the Route description section were not cited to anything. Ergo, it's not correct for you to have claimed that the entire article was cited to GMaps. That has since changed with a little work to cite the paragraph to Rand McNally, another paragraph on Corridor L to a source on the Appalachian Development Highway System. Imzadi 1979 → 20:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I assume they haven't been challenged because everyone here except you knows what putatively means. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I know what "putatively" means, and yet it didn't apply because you can't claim that uncited information is "generally considered or reputed to be" cited to something else. You just can't make that assumption without reading the mind of the editor who added the content without adding a citation to know where he or she actually got the information cited. Maybe it was GMaps used, and maybe it wasn't.

It only took a few minutes of work to pull out a paper atlas, confirm information and craft a citation plus a few more minutes to find an online source for the ADHS Corridor L information and craft that citation, thus providing actual citation for previously uncited content. Imzadi 1979 → 21:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I still don't think you understand reliability, that "online source" is a fansite[63]. Thats a hard no, you can't do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

And I would like to point out at this time that I mentioned "corridor L" on September 30 (ish). Your challenge was refuted with a simple Google search, defeating the intended purpose of WP:CITE to make an attempt before bitching. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Reliable for general information but does not show notability. I agree with Jayron32's sentiment that Describing routes and calculating distances and the like are basic map reading skills, no different from paper atlases etc. It does not require extraordinary knowledge nor complex interpretation, it's just reading a map.
  I say that Google Maps is reliable for general information because it collects data from a variety of sources such as United States Census Bureau's TIGER datasets, so it's fine for describing the general routing of features such as highways. However, more granular details may not be as accurate, and it sometimes contains outdated info for more rural locales, sometimes with unfortunate results. In addition, due to restrictions on geographic data in China, Google Maps is not reliable in that country at all. For that reason, I also agree with Imzadi1979 that, in many cases, Google Maps reference should be supplemented by a route log or by a government map.
  There is no policy that prohibits primary sources in articles. If you can analyze a map, you can use it to verify information in the article - for example, there is no original research involved in verifying that a certain highway runs through two specific locales, because the highway's existence is a simple fact. However, Google Maps is a primary source, as with other maps, and it merely depicts landscape and engineering features that already exist. It cannot be used as a source for more specific details, such as which species of grass grows next to a certain road. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly. What shall we do? Bring all the primary sources here, and claim they are not reliable because they are unable to support the notability of an article? It's a totally absurd notion that the Wikipedified notability fanatics have pushed, and we need to start pushing back. Huggums537 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I am not arguing that it's a primary source and therefore cannot be used at all; I'm saying as a primary source it cannot be the basis of an article. We should not have articles that are only sourceable to GMaps, and we should not be using it for anything beyond the most basic details. It certainly should not be used to claim something is DUE. I think those are what the major issues are with the page in question. JoelleJay (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  I actually agree that a primary source does not contribute to notability, which is why I commented as much. It's similar to how one would not use WP:FILMPLOT to create an article about a film that consists solely of synopses. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would be surprised to find articles only sourced to GMaps. They should be referencing a variety of source from various publishers, and in the article that kicked off this discussion, it was easy to add a few sources to what was really uncited content. Imzadi 1979 → 05:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Unreliable A key thing to keep in mind is that Google Maps use a lot of data automation to create their maps. While some of this is coming from human-oversighted sources, it makes far better sense to use those directly rather than assume Google's automatic hasn't made errors. --Masem (t) 01:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Per Masem, and let me add from personal experience that Google allows and encourages the putative owners of physical locations to "take control" of those locations and make edits. I can also state, from the same experience, that the Google-generated data for those locations is often wildly, hilariously wrong. I think Google Maps is a tremendously useful resource, but I don't think it should be cited in actual articles. Mackensen (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  The text in a decent highway article wouldn't be mentioning specific businesses because we're not a travel guide, and because we wouldn't want to seem unduly promotional or commercial. That said, there'd be exceptions like mentioning South of the Border in the articles on I-95 where there would be newspapers/books/etc. to cite and include the context of the inclusion instead of relying on a map for its mere existence. Imzadi 1979 → 20:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Google is generally pretty good. Like any map, it will have some minor errors in it on occasion. Ideally it should be paired with a more official source like government GIS data or a DOT route log for verification, but I see no reason to wholesale ban its use. Also, the discussion about notability above is nonsense and way off-topic - I don't think anybody is trying to use Google to establish any kind of notability for articles like this.Highway 89 (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Carl Sagan used as a source for philosophy of science

User:Carchasm recently nearly blanked the Argument from Authority page. In his edit summary he stated "carl sagan is not a reliable source anyway and his books are filled with factual errors" and on the Talk that "Carl sagan is not a philosopher of science. I recommend you take a look at WP:RS and WP:V if you have trouble understanding this". As a widely-known and well-respected scientist who dedicated much of his career to the public understanding of the scientific method, I believe that he is a perfectly fine figure to cite on the page when it comes to the intersection of this aspect of science and philosophy. I don't believe we'll be able to reach a consensus between ourselves on the Talk page and so would appreciate community input on the question. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy to discuss here as well, but I added an explanation to your talk page of what reliable sources constitute. Popular science authors are not scholarly academic sources for academic philosophy, I do not believe that this is really something that is unclear in WP:RS - car chasm (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that Carl Sagan is not a citable scholar on the subject of science. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You are aware Carl Sagan is an academic (PhD and all that)? Yes, he often wrote for the popular people, but he absolutely is a fair source on philosophy of science. Masem (t) 22:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

i mean, in some cases perhaps, but he's certainly biased towards a particular viewpoint, scientism. I don't think having a phd (in a different field) makes someone necessarily a reliable source? - car chasm (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Expertise in a STEM field is distinct from expertise in the philosophy of science, which is a branch of philosophy. Sagan's expertise is the former, not the latter. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Porque no los dos? Having expertise in one field does not mean one cannot have expertise in other fields. Chomsky is cited as having worthwhile things to say in both linguistics and political science. Stephen Jay Gould was a well-respected evolutionary biologist, but also is well cited for his works in both the history and the philosophy of science. Many people can be well recognized as reliable sources in multiple fields. --Jayron32 15:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

looks like this has been discussed here, and here. Oddly, many of the arguments then look very similar to now. - car chasm (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

and strangely, the article that was settled upon back then looks a lot better than the one from this morning...

In fact, nearly all the previously cited high-quality sources have been removed. - car chasm (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, having not reviewed previous discussions, not every source cited for philosophical topics needs to be a philosophical academic expert, and Carl Sagan is very much fair game. Andre🚐 22:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

the issue in previous discussion is that multiple philosophical experts who disagreed with carl sagan were removed, and replaced with carl sagan's minority viewpoint - car chasm (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I mean, Carl Sagan shouldn't be the only source nor should the academic philosophical experts be removed, however, you appear to have in the diff linked above, removed about 20kb of material, some of which, upon cursory glance, appears to be links to stuff like Nature and Cell. Andre🚐 23:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Admittedly, i probably should have just reverted back to 2017. But I didn't think there would be a whole, well-sourced article hiding back five years ago. The nature and cell citations were being used to arrive at (philosophical) conclusions not supported by the articles. - car chasm (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

In fact, now that I think about it, lots of citations to Nature and Cell on an article about philosophical logic are a pretty huge flag for WP:SYNTH because any conclusions drawn that would be relevant to philosophy would not typically be published in those journals - the equivalent appropriate journals for philosophy would be ones like Nous, Mind, The Philosophical Review, etc. And for something like argument from authority which is relatively well-established, any journal articles are rather suspect because citing new research is generally not necessary for established topics that have not changed much. - car chasm (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that those journals should be given the most weight since they are the most authoritative, but I'm not sure that it makes sense to say there will never be a valid, usable philosophy article in a more sciencey science journal. This seems like an overexclusive interpretation to me. Andre🚐 18:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

yeah, I think we agree here. I'm advocating giving sciencey science journals the side eye in articles on philosophy, not uniformly excluding them. - car chasm (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. I just want to further add that it's important to remember that a Wikipedia article about appeal to authority isn't only about the strict meaning of that in the context of informal logic, but also about the broader cultural and social scientific view of that concept. So it's not OR/SYNTH to cover what other sources outside of the core authoritative epistemological science/philosophy of mind/philosophy of science and what have you concepts, they just should be given due weight and perhaps a separate section or a separate treatment in context. Andre🚐 19:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

After reviewing previous noticeboard entires for Carl Sagan, I have opened a case on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere - car chasm (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Re: "I don't believe we'll be able to reach a consensus between ourselves on the Talk page," you didn't even attempt to reach consensus on the Talk page before bringing it here, contrary to WP:DR. Sagan is a scientist with specific expertise; he's "a citable scholar on the subject of" astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology. He's not a philosopher of science, so he's not a citable authority (WP:RS) for that. There are plenty of actual philosophers of science turn to for the latter. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think that there are two questions here, the smaller question about whether its appropriate to use Sagan in that specific context and the larger question of whether an expert in X is also inherently an expert in the Philosophy of X. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  I hope that the answer to the larger question is a relatively uncontroversial "no" in most cases - psychologists and neurologists are frequently not well-informed on philosophy of mind, same for mathematicians/philosophy of math, theologians and apologists/philosophers of religion, etc. I think "philosophy of X" disciplines often ask uncomfortable questions about the study of X (e.g. scientists would really prefer if epistemology was not complicated), which leads to no shortage of people who "experts" in X but broadly dismissive of the philosophical study of X in a way that approaches WP:FRINGE. It's not much different than James Watson or Freeman Dyson speaking outside their narrow band of expertise, when an expert in a related field strongly goes against the consensus of experts in the actual field, it's probably WP:UNDUE from someone with an axe to grind.

  It is ironic that the argument from authority article is the one that's being discussed here, though :) - car chasm (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that being an expert in X doesn't automatically give one expertise in philosophy of X. However, topics have a specialized meaning and a generalizable meaning. Something like "appeal to authority" is general enough of a term that it should be discussed in terms of both what it means in epistemology, what it means in popular fields, etc. in separate sections and so on. Not all non-expert POVs are therefore fringe. Andre🚐 21:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well, in this particular case the view *is* fringe, and while I think I see the abstract point you're trying to make I think it's rarely the case in philosophy. People in other fields are always making much stronger claims about the nature of logic or knowledge or mathematics, often without realizing that they are doing so. There's no clear-cut boundary between "academic philosophy" and "popular fields" and attempting to draw one would itself be a philosophical claim.

  This is usually a non-issue though, because there's inevitable also a philosophical study of the popular field itself which has no shortage of reliable sources - in this case, Carl Sagan or another scientist's claims on knowledge (i.e. epistemology, logic) are the subject of philosophy of science, and can likely be treated as such. Any colloquial uses of a term should only be given as much coverage as is warranted to clear up confusion, per WP:DICTDEF, and likely treated as primary sources that need the support of secondary ones. - car chasm (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not to nitpick, but I would dispute your view that scientism is fringe. WP:FRINGE states "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." I would submit that scientism is a mainstream view in both the philosophy of science (the Wiki article states as much) and in society in general. My POV is that it ought to be fringe, but that's not the reality. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  I completely agree the answer is "no" in most cases. As for Sagan has he ever been published in a philosophy journal or published alongside philosophers? Thats the only way I'm seeing him being a subject matter expert, now his opinions may still be notable but only if a third party talks about them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  For sagan it looks like the answer is no for philosophy publications: jstor turns up two philosophy articles, and they are both reviews of his books - he's not an author of either journal paper and both were actually published after his death. - car chasm (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  So, that would seem to mean Sagan's books are in the field of philosophy, otherwise they would not be reviewed in philosophy journals. Sagan's work at issue in the edit, The Demon Haunted World, is apparently referenced in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. At any rate, what is your problem with the Sagan quote, you think he was wrong in his quote about appeal to authority? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, that's not true. Carl Sagan is a scientist, and philosophers of science love using him as an example because of just how he wrong was about everything. The quote in question from the article, Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority as authority has no place in science. Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority: One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else." sounds noble enough, but sort of just misunderstands and misrepresents the whole epistemological debate to begin with. Unless Sagan was personally performing every scientific experiment he ever presented and working out every theory that he ever presented on Cosmos, he also accepted argument through authority, and since it's clear he didn't expect everyone who watched his show to work it out, he expected them to believe his authority on many things. - car chasm (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  We may agree with you about Sagan and how right or wrong he is, but that doesn't mean his wrongness isn't worthy of being described in attributed form, if it's a notable minority view. Andre🚐 23:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  yeah, but it just isn't that - he's just an outside who misunderstood the whole debate. it's notable enough to be covered on his page perhaps, but "crank pseudo-philosopher makes broad, senseless statement that doesn't mean anything" doesn't belong on an article, it's WP:FRINGE. The Stanford article quoted in that article even says This form of the argument occurs when the presumed authority appealed to is compromised in some way; such as being an expert in the wrong subject or is giving views from one side of an active controversy. Some examples of this are citing a popular astrophysicist for claims about molecular biology; which is a very clear jab at Sagan. - car chasm (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  " . . .philosophers of science love using him as an example because of just how he wrong was about everything." Do you have citations for that, or is that just something you made up? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  sure, from not looking too deeply, here are a couple on google books 12. Also Stanford: 1 2

  If you grew up with Carl Sagan's cosmos this may be new information to you but he is very much treated as a punchline, as a clear advocate of the fringe belief of scientism. - car chasm (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think that's overstating it. Carl Sagan "was an American astronomer, planetary scientist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, author, and science communicator." He was a popular science educator and an entertainer. He is still widely respected even though he may not be an expert in epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind or philosophy in general. Andre🚐 23:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  Are you... citing a wikipedia page? But at any rate your citation doesn't support your claim, a popular science educator and entertainer is not a reliable source for philosophy. Not sure how you could read WP:RS and come away with that conclusion. - car chasm (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  As I just said I don't think he should be cited as an expert in philosophy, he should be treated as a public intellectual and popular author, not unlike a Malcolm Gladwell. Andre🚐 23:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  None of those sources say Sagan was wrong about everything. Nor do they say philosophers of science love as an example because of just how he wrong was about everything. You have not only disproved your claim, you have suggested that your critique of Sagan is just a matter of your theology. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'd remind you of WP:NPA, I don't believe in gods or superstition or theology and don't appreciate any implication that I do. - car chasm (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  Your the one who brought personal into this with your "If you grew up", and you seem to have a theology about scientism, and that Sagan is somehow the high priest, making other irrelevant claims that his work is reviewed in philosophy journals after he died, and silly claims of wrong about everything. The logic of your critique is wanting with respect to any relation to the quote, nor is it supported in evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  Okay I actually don't understand what you're asking for. Do you want some sort of formal logic proof that Carl Sagan is not a philosopher? I don't think anyone can give you that. Sorry. - car chasm (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a question of reliability as we define it in this project. To the extent that Sagan's published materials were published by reputable publishers, they are certainly reliable for our purposes. Whether that means that they are good sources to use for this particular article is a different discussion that is not appropriate for this noticeboard. Editors who would like additional input are encouraged to open a discussion in the article's Talk page and consider an RfC or queries to relevant Wikiprojects. ElKevbo (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

How is whether or not an author is a subject matter expert not a reliability question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

To the extent that Sagan's published materials were published by reputable publishers, they are certainly reliable for our purposes. - this is more or less directly contradicted by WP:SCHOLARSHIP. - car chasm (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

If this is simply a matter of this noticeboard not being the correct venue, I think I would agree. Especially because it has been discussed here and here and it's really not clear why it keeps getting brought back here except in the hope that a venue with people less familiar with philosophy will be more friendly to Carl Sagan. - car chasm (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• This was a poorly framed initial question, but the discussion here has ignored what Sagan was actually being cited for at the article in question. If I may paraphrase, it was a single quote to the effect be careful of relying on authorities, sometimes they're wrong, and they need to prove their theories like everyone else, appropriately cited. To die on the hill of "Sagan isn't an expert on the philosophy of science so this has to be deleted" is a vast overreach. He is certainly an expert on the scientific method, and the statement is hardly controversial. Is there a school of the philosophy of science that says, to the contrary, "If Professor Seuss PhD is an acknowledged expert on the subject of Ooblick, we should accept anything they say about Ooblick, even though they refuse to explain or provide any data?" I see no problem whatsoever with the specific quote in the specific article with the specific reference. Banks Irk (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  I explained the issue above. He has taken a nonsensical stance on a debate he does not understand. - car chasm (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, actually, you didn't explain at all. You simply asserted,that he's not an expert on the philosophy of science and thus should not be heard to opine on this issue, and then asserted, without any explanation whatsoever, that, while his statement seems reasonable on it's face, Sagan failed to understand the issue. You have also asserted that his position is "fringe". I think that needs some evidence, cited to reliable sources. Banks Irk (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't really plan on explaining much of anything beyond what I have, I've written plenty, cited several sources, and provided plenty of explanations of my own. If you haven't read them or don't find them convincing that's not really my problem; this isn't going anywhere and there's no clear resolution or next steps here that I can see other than the person who opened the original notice being blocked as a very clear sockpuppet of two other users who opened identical discussions in the past.

  The page has already been restored to the state from the last time this question was discussed here, before all of the WP:SCHOLARSHIP was removed. I don't think anyone is arguing that all of the philosophy sources should be removed and the scientism ones put back. I'm not looking to have Carl Sagan deprecated as a source generally speaking. If you happen to think you agree with him philosophically, maybe... go read an epistemology textbook or something? Robert Audi's book is a pretty good introduction to the field, I think it would be hard to read that book and come away with the conclusion that that Carl Sagan quote actually meant anything at all. - car chasm (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  That kind of condescension is not going to win you a lot of fans outside your walled gardens. Banks Irk (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  I tried to give you a little more to work with, but it's pretty clear you initially commented without reading half the discussion anyway. Maybe don't complain that you don't understand something and demand people explain it when you haven't even read half of what they already wrote? - car chasm (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  If it helps you any (I suppose I can't resist explaining after all...), Sagan is building a straw man: while most people do not agree with the statement "authority should never be questioned" most people, including Carl Sagan, do accept authority as a source of knowledge because they don't verify everything themselves. and most people, including Carl Sagan, frequently argue in favor of authorities they trust in matters they have not personally verified. so he's sort of just saying a trite little nonsense statement that doesn't help anyone actually evaluate knowledge, and passing it off as received wisdom. - car chasm (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  So your argument is that his statement is 100% correct, but he doesn't always follow his own advice. Old adage, "When you discover that you're in a hole, stop digging". Banks Irk (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  yeah, that's what i said initially - nonsensical sense on a debate he doesn't understand. it's like he showed up to an ethical debate and said "gee, i really hate it when people are immoral, wish they wouldn't do that!" which mostly no one disagrees with, and then he sort of implied that anyone who disagreed with him was just being immoral on purpose. - car chasm (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  So at this point you concede that what Sagan said in the disputed quote is 100% accurate re the subject matter of the section of the article, i.e. the use of argument to authority in science, but are reduced to you don't like him because he's a "sciencist" (which is perhaps relevant if we were discussing religion or metaphysics and not the scientific method) and he doesn't always follow his own advice. I'd say that's a concession to close on the basis that Sagan is a reliable source for the quote in the article. Banks Irk (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm a scientist, so no that's not accurate. And taken at face value his advice is either meaningless (don't always trust authority!) or horrible (never believe anything you haven't personally observed). I do think we should close this, under the understanding that the current state of the article, as it was in 2017, with No carl sagan quote, is the correct one. because after that consensus was achieved, a sockpuppet of the minority viewpoint slowly changed the article against the consensus of multiple subject matter experts, in violation of their block. - car chasm (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Request to Close as incorrect venue, WP:NPOVN or WP:FTN would be a more appropriate venue as the question of whether Sagan is citeable at all isn't really the question here, it's whether or not he's biased or fringe. I don't plan on opening a discussion there unless the original person who brought this to this noticeboard continues to object on the article talk page. I somewhat suspect they won't be back though, there's a pattern with Carl Sagan and this article and noticeboard specifically. - car chasm (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This is hard to interpret in any way other than WP:FORUMSHOP. This is clearly the proper place for the question of whether a given source is reliable for a given claim. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Support the request to close. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The article is about whether a certain method should be used by scientists or not. Of course scientists understand that better than philosophers, they have to decide whether to use it every day, while philosophers are one or two steps removed from the problem. Sagan wrote several books about how to do science and how not to do it, and it is silly to say he was not an expert on the difference between both.

It cannot be that the expertise of scientists on how to do their own job is taken away from them by to a bunch of people whose work consists of sitting in armchairs and talking about stuff they only heard about from others. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

No, the article is not about "whether a certain method should be used by scientists or not." The article is about a form of argumentation -- the argument from authority -- used in diverse settings (e.g., science, social science, art, public policy debates, advertising, ...), which has a fallacious form (e.g., when the ostensible authority is not an authority on the topic at hand) and a widely accepted form (when all agree that the person is a reliable authority). The argument from authority is not a scientific method. Part of the problem here is that the question was poorly worded initially. Sagan is a reliable source for scientific claims in areas where he has expertise (e.g., cosmology, astrophysics). But the question here is whether he's a reliable source for claims about the philosophy of science, and just as scientists understand the scientific methods in their field better than philosophers of science do, philosophers of science understand the philosophical issues better than the scientists do. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling It's fairly clear that you feel strongly about this, but it also seems that you understand that your viewpoint does not reflect the academic consensus? If you want to have an RFC to ban all philosophy of science coverage from wikipedia because you and others don't personally like it, I suppose you are welcome to do so, but I think that would violate WP:NPOV and is unlikely to win broader approval. - car chasm (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

"Ban", what nonsense. Maybe you should look up another fallacy: straw man.

I just do not want philosophers of science to have a monopoly on good reasoning. Galileo, another pop science writer, as you can see from the fact that he used Italian instead of Latin, said pretty scathing stuff about the argument from authority - the authority in his case was a philosopher, Aristoteles. Philosophers have no business of looking down their noses at scientists when scientists are the ones who have to kick the philosophers' butts every few centuries, telling them how to use their own branch of philosophy. The "reasoning - authority" dichotomy is a scientist's bread and butter, and it is pretty impertinent of philosophers to hog it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You seem to hold a belief in a naive kind of scientism, which in the context of the coverage of the philosophy of science on Wikipedia would probably fall under WP:FRINGE. Endwise (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

you feel strongly about this

You seem to hold a belief

Yeah, it's all my fault that you do want to reject my reasoning. Please ask yourselves: Why do you have to resort to fallacies such as straw man and ad hominem if you are right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

please don't accuse other editors of fallacies for simply being polite to you. you are plainly admitting here that you want to push your own POV about the relation between philosophy and science, that is not supported by an academic sources. - car chasm (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Car chasm that preferring scientists without any background in logic or philosophy over logicians and philosophers in articles about logic and philosophy will inevitably lead to promoting fringe. I also think that editors who personally believe that philosophers are unqualified to talk about science should stay far away from any Wikipedia article dealing with subjects relating to philosophy of science or logic/philosophy as applied in science. While it's perfectly legitimate to hold such a personal belief, it runs contrary to mainstream reliable sources, which do look to professional philosophers for such subjects. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not about "preferring". It is about "completely ignoring".

I "personally believe" that if someone has studied the field A, they are qualified for field A, and if someone has studied the field B, they are qualified for field B. Your claim that being a philosopher (field A) is a qualification for science (field B) is just the Dunning-Kruger effect speaking. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I accuse editors of fallacies because they use fallacies, not because they are "polite". With the banning thing, you put words into my mouth, and that is a fallacy called straw man. Diverting attention from a user's reasoning to the user's alleged feelings is also a fallacy, called Red herring. I think it is remarkable that a group of people who claim knowledge about who is an expert on fallacies uses fallacies all the time. --09:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that philosophy of science and science are two entirely different fields, each with their own expertise. The position you take that philosophy of science is dubious and that scientists are the proper authorities on philosophical issues related to science is fringe. You may hold this view, and you don't need to defend it here, but it simply is not acceptable from a WP:RS/NPOV perspective. The Dunning-Kruger comment is a pure personal attack. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not refuse that. To the contrary: My contribution was a response to your own fringe demand editors who personally believe that philosophers are unqualified to talk about science should stay far away from [..]. Philosophers are unqualified to talk about science unless they are scientists too. They may be qualified to talk about "philosophy of science", which is obviously different from science and mostly not very closely connected with science.

Scientists know how to do their job, and knowing the argument from authority is part of their job. The claim that this obvious fact is "fringe" is pretty unreal.

This leads too far away from the subject, and meaningful discussions with you are unlikely because you so often distort what people say, so I will leave it at that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Well by unqualified to talk about science I obviously meant talking about science from a logical/philosophical perspective. Philosophy of science, you know. It's a legitimate pursuit, and scientists qua scientists have no expertise in its issues, such as the validity of the argument from authority. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Argument from authority is an article about logic, which is a branch of philosophy. The relevant experts are logicians and philosophers, not astrophysicists and pop science authors like Carl Sagan. The fact that the relevant experts in this case purportedly 'sit in armchairs' is of no consequence: Wikipedia articles should be based on them. While non-experts may sometimes deserve a place in articles, the choice to use Sagan here appears to be entirely motivated by some kind of admiration for this popular author, not for Sagan's enlightening views on the subject. Arguments from authority in science were already criticized by Cicero (106–43 BCE), so to use someone like Sagan for this is entirely unnecessary, and frankly rather ridiculous. In fact, the whole 'Use in science' section here is superfluous and undue: the relevant experts do not pay any attention at all to such utterly trite observations as that scientists should check their evidence rather than blindly rely on authority. Rather, they focus on the logical and epistemological aspects of arguments from authority, and so should we. We are an encyclopedia, not a science education service targeted at young children. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree with this approach. It's an article about a form of argumentation that takes place in many domains, not just amongst logicians and philosophers. Understanding how this form of argumentation is perceived and used in areas other than among philosophers still has encyclopedic relevance. Deagonx (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Carl Sagan is certainly qualified as a source on the use of arguments from authority *as they are used in science*. And from the context of the quote, that is clearly what he is talking about - the science-approach of distrusting authority based arguments. As Hob above points out, philosphers do not have a monopoly on arguments from authority, either as an intellectual concept or in day-to-day practice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps instead of Carl Sagan, who writes for a popular audience and had a fairly hands-off career, you'd rather an professional scientist who also worked in philosophy? Thomas Kuhn might be a good replacement. or Imre Lakatos. Both of them are scientists originally who made the transitions to philosophy, and should reasonably be considered experts in how arguments from authority are used in science.

  Or if Carl Sagan is such a famous scientist, and not simply a popularizer of science that many editors have heard of, perhaps you could explain for us some of his scientific discoveries? You might want to add them to his wikipedia page while you're at it, which clearly lacks much of any of them other than a few speculations about life on other planets. - car chasm (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Regardless of how you might feel about Sagan himself, it's obvious that nuking the entire page due to your personal grudge against him isn't appropriate. Such a sweeping revision (or a reversion to a five year old version of the page) is something that should've been discussed in the talk page. Deagonx (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  It looks like you're pretty new(?) to wikipedia, may I recommend that you take a look at WP:BRD and WP:STUBIFY? And no, I did not nuke the page solely because of Carl Sagan, the carl sagan quote just inspired me to take a closer look and I went through it line by line, and I made a post on the talk page about it. If an article is biased it sometimes makes sense to remove content that pushes a particular biased POV until a consensus is decided and a more neutral article can be written, even if some of the removed content might make sense on a final, balanced version of an article. Any content removed can be re-added by looking through the history, it isn't lost forever. Other than my own time lost spent with a close reading of the article there wasn't much at stake there, I have no desire to edit war and was willing to spend time being WP:BOLD even if it ultimately came to naught. - car chasm (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree with User:Alanscottwalker. Review of Sagan in a philosophical journal evidences his work as being in the nature of a philosopher. There are no right or wrong answers in philosophy anyway, only endless arguments. Like this one. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Comment:, Declaring my Bias, I almost love Carl Sagan. Having said that, Sagan was both a scientist and a science communicator. We can use Sagan's opinions when published in peer reviewed journals, but I think we shouldnt when he is publishing books or other media where he blends entertainment with scientific facts or philosophical arguments. Cinadon36 09:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Having given this some more thought, I've come to realize that this is one of those threads should never have come to RSN in the first place. One editor brazenly claimed in an edit summary that Carl Sagan is not a reliable source, and another editor took this to mean that their whole content dispute with the first editor could be solved by just showing that Sagan is a reliable source. But in fact, showing this does not solve the content dispute, whose substance does not turn on it.

Sure, Sagan is reliable in some contexts for basic facts about the scientific method and what not, but the question is rather whether it is helpful ('wp:due') to quote Sagan in this context, and actually more broadly whether all of the content removed and replaced by a 2017 revision here is helpful and due for a properly encyclopedic article. Discussion of that should proceed on the talk page, and the next step here (which does seem needed if editors would like to pursue this further, though I would actually advise against that) is an RfC rather than a noticeboard discussion.

Also remember that the best solution to problems of this kind is often to rewrite the entire article on a more solid basis. Surprisingly, that often takes less time and energy than endless bickering. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Health Liberation Now! Relisted

Context: Original poorly formatted notification here. However, it contains how the authors and organization are covered in reliable sources. In addition, since the original listing, I created an article for Health Liberation Now!

Question: Can we use Health Liberation Now! as a source for factual information?

1) We can use it as a source without in-text attribution (X happened)

2) We can use it as a source with in-text attribution (Health Liberation Now stated X happened)

3) We can't use it as a source at all

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• 1 though 2 is an acceptable compromise (as proposer): HLN's reporting is often used matter of factly in reliable sources. The authors are considered subject matter experts and we also have practically every mention in a reliable source, especially WP:SIRS, describing them as an organization known for reporting on political attacks on transgender healthcare. While they are an advocacy group, that doesn't mean they aren't neutral or uncitable, as we quote organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center in a similar manner. No reliable sources have raised doubts about the accuracy of their reports, and frankly they do good reporting on an under-reported issue. For those reasons, we should be able to include details from their reporting in articles, either as facts since they often publish easily verifiable statements, or attributed to keep in line with Wikipedia policies.

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Mu. The three options in the RfC represent a false choice, which is to say that the poorly constructed RFC ignores the potential that we should treat as self-published and apply additional considerations with respect to biographies of living persons. There is not all that much significant coverage of the website itself, though the best I can piece together is that this is a two-person job that appears to be a group blog. I don't see evidence of the sorts of things that we require of news organizations, such as strong editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. I also don't think that this is anywhere near the level of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. As always, the guidance of WP:RSSELF that Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable is worth heeding here.
  There is a narrow exception for expert sources, which is reserved for people whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Along those lines, @TheTranarchist: has the research of the two people who run this website previously been published by independent, reliable publications, such as academic or peer-reviewed journals? If so, would you be willing to provide links to some examples? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I covered how they were considered experts extensively in the previous RFC but was chided for information overload.

  1) Leveille, Schevers, and Health Liberation Now are cited in this peer-reviewed article

  2) The independent calls Leveille a a trans researcher and health activist who has extensively documented the origins of what he calls TAnon

  3) Xtra Magazine describes Schevers as a researcher who researches TERFs because she used to be one. She’s written extensively about being sucked into a cult-like “detransition” movement which convinced young transmasculine people that their dysphoria was caused by misogyny and could only be cured by radical feminism.. They also state She has been my most patient guide through the world of organized transphobia, having previously spoken to me about the rise of anti-trans activism targeting doctors and gender clinics; every conversation is a whirlwind of names, dates, times and bizarre blog posts from TERF havens, illuminating the underbelly of an obsessive and increasingly dangerous movement.

  4) Ms. Magazine describes Schevers as a researcher who tracks anti-trans activity

  5) Salon describes Schevers as a trans journalist

  6) Vice despite being a passing mention does describe Schevers as a HLN researcher

  The Indepedendent and Xtra Magazine both discuss their research in depth and use them as reliable sources.

  In addition, Schever's past involvement with transphobic detransition communities is well documented in places such as Slate.

  While they are a WP:SPS, the policy states 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.

  The reason I initially listed this is because they have done in-depth reporting of modern anti-trans groups such as Genspect, and their reports are fact-based and link to evidence. Since we can't link to such evidence directly, such as when they provide receipts for Genspect partnering with anti-LGBT groups, they allow us to give a more in-depth article. An example of the kind of content they produce and how it fills in gaps in articles is also in the previous discussion. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  You are correct that Schever's work is mentioned in the journal article (along their blogspot post too). Reading the relevant portion of the article, which follows the sentence that mentions anecdotal accounts from detransitioners, Schever's work is used to represent an anecdotal account of a former detransitioner, which makes perfect sense for a journal article that wants to discuss narratives described by detransition advocates. And the remainder of the citations are used to describe Schever's sexual orientation/gender identity and personal regret with de-transitioning (i.e. the sort of stuff WP:ABOUTSELF is fine with) and their personal experience within the detrans community (again, see WP:ABOUTSELF).

  But none of this but lends credibility to Schever as being an SME broadly on the sorts of stuff that HLN covers, which per the website is the social and political forces acting in opposition to health liberation for transgender, detransitioned, retransitioned, and gender diverse people, as well as those questioning their gender. And, frankly, none of the other publications appear to provide evidence that either of the founders of the website have previously published their work in reliable, independent publications; merely being referred to as a researcher or a journalist by the popular press is not evidence that an individual is an SME in light of our guidelines on self-published sources. As such, this appears to be a non-SME SPS, though if you can provide evidence either founder has actually published their research in reputable, independent publications, I'd be happy to look it over. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Does the Advocate count (Leveille wrote the article) or are you looking for scholarly sources specifically?

  In addition, considering the social and political forces acting in opposition to health liberation for transgender, detransitioned, retransitioned, and gender diverse people, as well as those questioning their gender, the fact that Schevers has verifiably been on both sides of the issue adds credence to her expertise. The Florence Ashley paper described her factually as heavily involved in detransitioner advocacy for 6 years. There's also the fun aspect that transgender people pay much closer attention to legislative attacks on our rights, since they affect us directly, than cis colleagues are likely to. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  A commentary/opinion piece in The Advocate (or news organizations, more generally) is not the sort of thing that makes one an SME, especially in light of our general guidance that op-eds and editorial pieces are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. (I can't imagine that writing an op-ed or commentary piece in the WSJ or the The NY Times instantly qualified someone as a subject-matter expert when we don't typically consider their regular columnists to be reliable for statements of fact.) I think the guideline looks more for academic sources or something published by reputable think tanks like Brookings Institution or the like; we typically don't even consider independent journalists who formerly worked at a major newspapers to be SMEs.

  With respect to There's also the fun aspect that transgender people pay much closer attention to legislative attacks on our rights, since they affect us directly, than cis colleagues are likely to, I don't think that I've ever advocated for discounting trans people's writings or opinions on the basis of their gender identity. I also don't think that being trans makes one an SME on the social and political forces opposing trans people, much in the same way that being Muslim or being Jewish doesn't make one an SME on the various Islamophobic or antisemitic social and political forces that prowl about the world, respectively. Is one's baseline awareness higher? I imagine so, but that's not really relevant to source analysis here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  I hadn't noticed that was an opinion piece, thanks for pointing that out! My comment wasn't implying you didn't, more so reflecting on the sad fact that two trans people who've had personal experience with the hijacking of the detransition community, have created well-formed factual reports and research tracking anti-trans attacks on our rights, which have been referenced in reliable sources, can't be used since they don't report through official institutionalized channels. The presence of an editorial board doesn't mean a source will report accurately or fairly any more than its absence means they won't. The quality of their reporting hasn't been brought up, and the fact we trust authority rather than veracity of reporting is saddening on many levels. Put simply, it's depressing they point out things that are happening that are completely verifiably true and we can't say they happened or even that HLN said they happened, even when it would greatly improve the quality of an article, not because they didn't actually happen but because of technicalities. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• None/3. I don't see why this page should be listed at RSP at all. My understanding is the RSP list is for frequently used sources. This source seems to be an obscure trans-rights group run by two people without an editorial policy. The WP article for the group is actually up for AfD. I just don't see how this rises to the level of being listed on RSP - there are thousands of websites that are used more frequently. --Kbabej (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• As I noted when this question was first raised just a couple weeks ago, this is not a reliable source. It is self-published, and the co-founders are not recognized as subject matter experts. The only mentions of them or their website in independent sources are anecdotal and trivial. Neither has been published in a reliable independent source other than a single op-ed style article in The Advocate criticizing a 60 Minutes segment. The comparison to the SPLC is not apt. This is simply not a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• 3 per what I said in the recent discussion on this, as well as Red-tailed hawk and Banks Irk above. It is a two-person activism blog with no editorial oversight whatsoever. We have actual RS on these matters we can use. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• I prefer this format better than the one that commonly includes "deprecation". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• It's an obscure website that will most certainly be forgotten in ten years time and has only received sizable outside coverage in one LGBT magazine. There's no need for an RfC in the first place. X-Editor (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

CNN news reliability

In the last years I keep finding articles that sound less and less credible on the CNN circuit. For example, right now my eye has fallen on this, which is entirely framed to portray a race issue in Kenly Police but fails to address the fact that the previous town manager was also black, as it can be seen by this local newspaper dated 2018. Another good example might be the fact that CNN lied about Lanny Davis being a source, to afterward defend the falsehood in the article by claiming they had another source too so he wasn't important rather than addressing the fact they did wrote something false on purpose. They are also quite politically biased. this article about 2022 Italian elections, which only shows concern and opposition to Meloni's victory without even trying a neutral stance. We even have an entire page about several critically bad coverages from the media [[64]] and the 2020 US election alone shows a starkly hostile take toward Conservatives.

Several websites tracking media reliabilities do not have an high opinion of CNN either, as the pages here and here. As a comparison, Fox News is just slightly below CNN in their ratings. Isn't it about time to discuss about avoiding such an unreliable source? Alves Stargazer (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It's been discussed to death (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#CNN), and it always amounts to WP:WHATABOUTISM. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I've just brought up one lie and one miscontextualization, both on purpose. Several more are already in the CNN page. It seems quite clear that reliability is not a strong point for the CNN, so what's the need to defend it?Alves Stargazer (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Be cautious when using it is what I can advise. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Alves Stargazer: Conservatives generally do not like CNN, and have often come to the help desk or teahouse protesting what they feel is unfair treatment of conservatives and their activities in Wikipedia articles. Nonetheless, if a CNN piece (or any news outlet for that matter) is used to source something that you disagree with, you're welcome to try to balance things out by finding an article in a reliable source that contradicts the reporting. For example, if you can find an article that says new Italian Prime Minister Meloni is not openly anti-LGBT including against same sex marriage, not against women's abortion rights, and not anti-immigrant, then you can call out CNN and any other sources that reported that she is all of those things. You can also check out WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Your advice is meritless, Emir. There s no call for "caution", and attempts to use that as a reason to remove CNN as a source from an article will likely be reverted. As for the OP, the fact that there was once a black manager previously doesn't grant those who walked on the current manager a magic "Get Out of Racism Free" card. You are providing your own disingenuous spin to two separate news articles. Zaathras (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The point is that there was no race card to begin with... No source reported any racist behaviour toward the manager, it was merely desumed by her being black and the cops white; this alone could be considered libel. But instead of writing a story about an incompetent manager (their words, not mine) that made all the dept. walk out they decided to re-frame it as a race issue, and this is straight-up bad faith. Alves Stargazer (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The only bad=faith here is on your end. There is no merit to your assertion, only a slanted opinion. Zaathras (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not meritless. If you would prefer not to use it and avoid then that is best for you, especially if we are talking about a WP:BLP or other contentious topic. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

CNN is generally reliable and is considered as such. It should not be regarded as less than reliable. WP:MBFC and WP:ADFONTES are NOT reliable and should not be used for this purpose. Andre🚐 00:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I got exactly one source in before discovering that you were full of it... "Others in the community say they believe there is not a racial component to the situation due to the fact the previous town manager was a Black man." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I was exactly one line in before discovering you were full of incivility. But staying on topic, you might notice that they tried to discredit the idea right below that line, put a title aimed to persuade people there is an ongoing race issue with the police dept and spent the whole article debating about it. It's clickbait at best and an active attempt to spark hate against the police at worst, so let's take the middle ground and say it was just unprofessional. Alves Stargazer (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Is that your opinion or can you provide a WP:RS which says that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News found the CNN lying on Davis right here. The Washington Post found the CNN lying on Trump receiving receiving early access to Wikileaks hacked documents on 2016/9/4, showing that said mail was received on 14 sept instead. Or, in the case of the Kenly police, you could try watching as the local news here or here and see how differently (and neutrally) they report the news. "Hey, that's not a WP:RS source!" yes, obviously, because major news media won't cover a minor town event, they would need to make up a race issue first. Alves Stargazer (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually asking for sources which support "they tried to discredit the idea right below that line, put a title aimed to persuade people there is an ongoing race issue with the police dept" and I guess now Im asking for support for "make up a race issue" as well Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Your first source, Media Bias/Fact Check, says CNN's "news reporting on the website tends to be sourced adequately with minimal failed fact checks." Your second source, Ad Fontes, rates CNN as "Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting in terms of reliability."

Sources can be both biased and reliable. Furthermore, the criticisms of unreliability are directed against talk show hosts, who are not reliable sources regardless of the reputation of the network.

While Media Bias/Fact Check found Fox even more biased than CNN, it said "Straight news reporting from beat reporters is generally fact-based and accurate." While Ad Fontes found Fox news reporting "generally reliable," it was rated less reliable and more biased than CNN.

Certainly you will find fake stories in CNN, but that's the same for any news outlet.

Ratings do not matter, since a huge section of the American public is uninformed and most of them watch Fox.

TFD (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

What I mean is that it's easy to find fox news hate on wikipedia, yet its reliability is rated just below the CNN and there's a consistent history of unprofessionalism. If we're aiming at only using good sources and try to avoid Fox there is just no reason to keep using CNN, especially for its political reports which are quite biased... it's quite odd to me to see such resistence. Alves Stargazer (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the arguments used in the RfCs about Fox News support the decision on its reliability, and the same for many RfCs on other publications. I remember that one of the main reasons used to support banning the ''Daily Mail'' was a false story they published, which also happened to be published in all the daily newspapers.

The only objective way to determine the reliability of news sources for Wikipedia is to use reliable third party comparisons.

In the end however, not using Fox News will have no effect on articles (1) all the networks are reporting the same news and (2) stories that appear in Fox News and are ignored by other cable media would not have weight for inclusion in stories about major topics. TFD (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

1. Actually, I don't know. Since Fox is right-winged while CNN is left-winged there's a decent chance that the two of them will cover different informations to pursue their bias, and therefore not have any echo in other media. But let's say you're right, it doesn't seem a loss to remove CNN either since everything major would be covered by BBC anyway. 2. My point is that CNN reports have been misleading (as in the town manager case) or even lying (in the Lanny Davis case). To this you can add articles already known for being wrong (in the CNN controversies page) that they printed without fact-checking. I'm not saying to treat it as a deprecated source, but to give preference to different sources. Alves Stargazer (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Alves Stargazer Keep in mind CNN has won multiple Emmy awards, and numerous other journalism awards. I don't think Fox News has won any kind of mainstream journalism award. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK Bret Baier has won a number of awards for his work as journalists, and even Chris Wallace (he's working at CNN right now but he's been at Fox News from 2003 to 2021); don't know how many more are there. I think that the main issue with Fox News are the commenters and the anchormen though, not the actual journalists. Alves Stargazer (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Neither of which has any bearing on reliability. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliability seems to be improving due to Chris Licht. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Not discussing something, and lying are not the same thing, nor is a user wp:or they are lying. Do you have any RS that say CNN lies? Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said in a different paragraph, about Lenny Davis we know they lied in saying he didn't comment, while he was later reported to have been their direct source. About Trump they said he received a confidential mail giving early access on hacked Wikileaks before the data was leaked, which was proven false by the Washington Post later. These are two small, yet documented lies written on purpose, which should be at least enough to question their reliability. While I don't have the time to scan every article they wrote looking for more it's unlikely that they stopped there. Alves Stargazer (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• I think that the cautions we give about using Fox for political and science topics should also apply to CNN… and indeed all of the major US news outlets. They have all published erroneous stories. They have all spun their news reporting to fit their preferred political narratives. They have all let opinion slip into their news reporting. Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Just a point of order but there has never been a period in which facts didn't slip into news reporting... We are currently living in the golden age of journalistic standards, they've literally never been higher or better enforced. This "slipping media" narrative is fiction unsupported by mainstream academics even if its become a popular fiction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    • I am unsure we are " living in the golden age of journalistic standards" (as I am unsure if any such thing has ever existed) if Fox or the phone hacking scandal is anything to go by. Rather I think people are no longer willing to buy the 5th estate narrative of journalistic integrity. The news media have been willing to publish outright lies since the fall of Sevastopol. So I think Blueboard makes a valid point about maybe we should stop using all news media. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
      • Another example is CNN's claim that Paul Manafort has a FISA warrant which has been debunked by the Inspector General but yet they doggedly refuse to retract it. CNN should be downgraded Nweil (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

      Whilte it would be definitely a motion I could stay behind, it would be pretty hard to talk about current events without news media as sources. Unless you're also suggesting that Wikipedia should stop acting as a tabloid and not cover modern-day events? Alves Stargazer (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

      That is what wp:notnews actually says, we should not really be a live news feed. We can in fact wait a few months before reporting an event. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• The Kenly thing is a matter of framing and obviously meant to drive clicks. It bothered me to see it, especially since the local news stations down here in Raleigh did not place emphasis on it, implicitly suggesting that race was not the deciding factor in the matter (I personally subscribe to the theory that the new outsider manager clashed with an old boys club at the small-town city hall, not exactly unheard of down here). But of course, race is a national issue, and "Police bully black woman" drives more clicks than "Personnel change due to drama in small town that you, average CNN reader, have never heard of". But the general facts of the CNN article mostly corresponded to what local media said, and local media did report that some residents had expressed worries about racism nonetheless. Disappointing from CNN? Absolutely. Unforgiveable? No. Inaccurate? Not really. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Fox and CNN should be held with a similar standard, treating one differently than the other demonstrates bias. There are numerous unreliable sources on CNN which seem to get a free pass on Wikipedia. I believe this needs to be revisited as well. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The argument (whether you accept it or not) is that we DO hold CNN and Fox to the same standard… but doing so gives us different results. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much this, the issue is Fox has been caught telling outright lies on a regular basis. For CNN the worse we have seen here is the odd "not telling the whole story". Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

To play devil’s advocate… The argument on the other side (whether you accept it or not) is that we DON’T actually hold the two to the same standard. That when Fox is guilty of “not telling the whole story”, we call it “lying”… and when CNN “lies”, we dismiss it as simply “not telling the whole story”. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Problem is when we say Fox lies we mean "they actually claim something that is not true, in their words". Such as deliberately falsifying a picture. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• CNN still is reliable, but I have found they are slipping into bad "clickbait" signs in how they generate headlines (which themselves aren't reliable). They want to draw your eyes to specific articles, creating a small bias to simply be aware of. --Masem (t) 13:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think it is well known nowadays to look beyond the headlines of online news sites. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Globalist.it also known as Globalist syndication

This section refers to pages in Italian. You can translate them here.

The Giorgia Meloni BLP cites the website "www.globalist.it" several times. However, it does not seem to me like a reliable source; User:Davide King disagrees with me about this. Several other Wikipedia articles cite this source as well. This source bills itself as "independent" and thus it is apparently not connected to The Globalist (an online magazine headquartered in DC), nor to any other Globalist described at Wikipedia. Descriptions of this globalist.it (also known as "Globalist syndication") are not numerous on the internet, even in Italian, but here are a couple descriptions via Google translate:

• “an independent syndication conceived by Antonio Cipriani and Gianni Cipriani, which gathers journalists, bloggers, sites, associations and activist citizens of the Net. As in a home, each of the inhabitants brings their own, specific and unique gift, contribution, precious for the well-being of all and to make that place welcoming.”[65]

• "Globalist syndication operates in the construction of an open and truly participatory information model, as opposed to the closed system of traditional media. An agora in which to share information, to grow a participatory news factory...."[66]

Some links to this source have a news extension like this:

(1) https://www.globalist.it/news/2020/12/04/l-ossessione-xenofoba-di-meloni-il-governo-non-si-occupa-dell-italia-ma-favorisce-i-clandestini

However, other links to this source have different extensions like this:

(2) https://www.globalist.it/politics/2019/11/23/il-dirigente-di-fratelli-d-italia-dobbiamo-essere-liberi-di-poterci-definire-fascisti-2049445.html

(3) https://www.globalist.it/intelligence/2020/05/10/giorgia-meloni-con-la-scimitarra-verbale-la-conversione-e-uno-dei-metodi-del-terrorismo-islamico-2057948.html

Even the links with the "news" extension do not read much like news to me. Consider link (1) above which is titled (per Google Translate) "Meloni's Xenophobic Obsession: 'The government does not take care of Italy but favors illegal immigrants'". It is only four paragraphs, it looks more like a brief blog post than a news article, the author is not identified, the date is only evident from the URL, and it starts with a vapid question: "What to say?". The title of this "news" uses epithets and seems pretty shabby/unreliable, certainly the stuff without a "news" extension cannot be a reliable source either, correct? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Bias aside, the website has a lot of linked similar news pages all under different names and every single one without even a single person putting his name as director or editor. The Whois database returns a "hidden" registrant, with no contact or even website admin... it's just plain impossible to know if there's even a single licensed journalist behind the site. It's just too shady, it can't be considered reliable. EDIT: there is a "Giuliana Sgrena" page, which is also linked as official Giuliana Sgrena webpage on her personal page on Wikipedia, but I can't verify whether it's actually her or just someone using her name for the website. Is there any proof about her page being actually written by her? Alves Stargazer (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Here’s an English translation of the portion of Globalist.it devoted to Giuliana Sgrena. I’m not sure what articles linked at that page were written by her, if any, but it says at the bottom that the page is copyrighted by her, not by globalist.it so there’s no evident editorial control by any editor. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The Sgrena page is mentioned on Sgrena's facebook too, which appears to be legit to me. But truth to be said, the fact that she bought a blog on the circuit does not mean that the main Globalist Syndicate should be considered handled by journalists or even a legitimate source of information. Alves Stargazer (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, what the user Anythingyouwant is writing, it is untrue. The Globalist is a reliable news source. How can you say the titles "seems pretty shabby/unreliable" if you have zero knowledge in Italian?

'Globalist' (launched in 2012) is one the main Italian syndications of journalists. Amongst its contributors there are famous journalists like Giovanna Botteri, Ennio Remondino, Giuliana Sgrena, etc. This fact can be read in one of the article published by the Italian National Press Federation, the unitary trade union of the Italian journalists.

Source: https://www.fnsi.it/il-futuro-e-digitale-ma-il-giornalismo-non-cambiannasce-globalistit-con-notizie-certificate 79.66.217.217 (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You haven't disagreed with any of the translations I gave above, or with the lack of authorship information. The fnsi link that you provide (which is from 2012) says that globalist.it is "in the Huffington Post style" but please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which says, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics." A biased source can still be reliable, but bias often makes in-text attribution appropriate, and the Meloni article does not use in-text attribution; the biased material is also a primary source, and that biased material is what we are using in the BLP without attribution. But even if we did use in-text attribution, I don't think the source is reliable, because we don't have authorship information, and at least some of the material seems to be self-published. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the HuffPost US. In Italy the HuffPost website has a different editorial board, a different style and with a different media coverage. So, what is your point?

You wrote that the website is not a reliable source, which is false.

You wrote that "it's just plain impossible to know if there's even a single licensed journalist behind the site", which is false and defamatory. Clearly you don't know how news outlets run in Italy and you don't have knowledge about Italian legislation of communication and information.

What translations did you refer to? Did you use free unreliable translation tools? I don't need them. I speak the language, unlike you!

In the source I provided you, it is clearly written that the Globalist publishes 'verified news'. 79.66.217.217 (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone else (not me) wrote "it's just plain impossible to know if there's even a single licensed journalist behind the site." You can see easily enough in my first post in this talk page section that I offered English translations of several things, but you have not disagreed with any of those translations. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You provided two translate texts (in the two bullet points) in your first post in this talk page! What is your point? You clearly don't know how journalists work in Italy. And the strict rules required, unlike the UK or US journalists.

All Italian journalists are required to become members of the Ordine dei Giornalisti by passing a professional exam. This requirement, established by law in 1963, is unique to the Italian media landscape, and only exists in a small number of other countries. While in other countries anyone can start to work as journalist immediately and he doesn't need a specific qualification, Italian journalists need to train for two years and pass an exam. If you are implying that in the Globalist (an accredited news outlet), anyone can publish, you are mistaken. 79.66.217.217 (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Globalist.it is “an independent syndication conceived by Antonio Cipriani and Gianni Cipriani, which gathers journalists, bloggers, sites, associations and activist citizens of the Net”. If they were only journalists, then perhaps they would reveal the names of their authors. Anyway, there is a difference in Italy between professionisti and pubblicisti. Per this source: "The professional journalist is enrolled in the Order of Journalists, has completed a period of paid internship in an editorial office or has attended a journalism school to be able to access the state examination for qualification to the profession. Once entered in the register, the journalist cannot carry out any work other than the editorial one, under penalty of expulsion." In contrast, "The freelance journalist is also enrolled in the Order of Journalists, but in a different register.....By law it is someone who does not carry out the activity of a journalist exclusively and who therefore can also ... carry out disparate or sector-related jobs, such as communication activities in social media or content development for the web, but also highly specialized jobs in specific areas." Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Reveal their names? If the news outlet doesn't sign the articles, it means the articles are produced by the editorial staff (=journalists). I know very well the difference between journalists so called 'professionisti and pubblicisti'. The journalists called 'pubblicisti' even if they don't need to pass an exam, however they have to carry out a paid and continuous journalistic activity for at least 24 months in one or more newspapers duly registered and directed by a member of the register of journalists who certifies the activity carried out. Yes and they can continue (if they have time) to do other jobs! But, this doesn't mean that you can read in the Globalist, an article written by anyone! 79.66.217.217 (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Where at the Globalist website are the names of the editorial staff? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Many Italian newspapers don't publish the list of their editorial staff. If you are interested, contact them via email! 79.66.217.217 (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

IP is arguing that Italian standards for journalism are different than US/UK standards, and Anythingyouwant is arguing that the articles just suck. I personally agree with Anythingyouwant here. From machine translations the articles seem very opinionated already. Sungodtemple (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Right, and it’s not just the quality of the “articles” but the secretive structure and personnel. As best I can tell, anyone can set up a blog there, including password-protected blogs. Some of those people may be journalists but the site boasts non-journalists too ("journalists, bloggers, sites, associations and activist citizens of the Net"). These people who run their separate blogs can then submit some of their writings for anonymous publication by Globalist.it at which point someone (again anonymous) decides whether to publish it, and maybe the top person (Gianni Cipriani) may (or may not) approve the “article” too. Cipriani did work for newspapers including Paese Sera, but it’s not clear how involved he is in reviewing each article by his team of bloggers. Anyway, the writing quality of their "news" is low, unprofessional, and opinionated. Here's how they've snagged writers: "Do you want to participate in Globalist Network? Log in and open your blog, or comment on the pieces, relaunch them in the social forums.”[67] So if you want to write there, you can write there. I'm not saying it's a bad website, but we'd be better off waiting for reliable sources to pick up each of their stories, and rewriting and expanding it in a professional manner. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The secretive structure and personnel? I have already written that many newspapers don't publish the list of the their editorial staff! Please, refrain from writing lies! I have already provided you a source that clearly states articles published in the Globalist are verified. Also, you have scarse knowledge about the legal responsibilities that face any editorial directors in any Italian newspapers! The blogs section is different from the news section of the website. 79.66.217.217 (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Them claiming something does not make it true. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

What are you referring precisely? Can you elaborate your sentence, please? 79.66.217.217 (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Wait right there, skipper. The website itself does not report the names of the editorial staff and articles are not signed, this is enough to consider it shady as hell. The only things that it's making me reconsider it is the fact that the FNSI is an official source of the Journalist federation but I would still debate whether it's enough. I don't know where you got that the Italian newspaper are anonymous but that's false- basically every Italian newspaper I know of only publishes signed articles and you know exactly who's writing what, they never hide behind a collective with occulted identities; and this includes the Huffington Post, which has every article signed.

Right now I'm considering the Globalist Syndicate as a personal blog handled by journalists, which can not be considered in my opinion as an professional news media. Its a personal project of theirs but it just lacks the transparency needed to make it trustworthy. I frankly see no reason to consider it reliable and it might be better to avoid it altogether in references. Alves Stargazer (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll give a couple specific examples of how the Giorgia Meloni BLP uses Globalist.it.

• The BLP says, “She has been accused of making xenophobic statements,[162] as well as of Islamophobia.”[163] These accusations are made by the two cited Globalist.it articles, not by anyone mentioned in those articles. The articles are not reporting about any accusations, but rather are making the accusations themselves. At [162], it is described that Meloni argued for better monitoring of undocumented/illegal/irregular immigrants within Italy, and for that Globalist.it accused her of "xenophobia". At [163] Meloni deplored the London stabbings in November 2019 by Usman Khan (terrorist) who stabbed five people, killing two; Meloni responded by criticizing Islamic fundamentalists and saying they were anathema to Italian/European traditions and identities, for which Globalist.it accused her of "Islamophobia". And we treat those accusations by globalist.it as reliable statements that she has been accused of xenophobia and Islamophobia.

• The BLP also says, “She has endorsed the Great Replacement, a white nationalist conspiracy theory.”[167] Neither Meloni nor globalist.it refers explicitly to “great replacement” or “white nationalism” but globalist.it does quote her as saying there is pressure to bring hundreds of thousands of people from third world countries into Europe to provide cheap labor. This is similar to standard arguments in the USA that there is a labor shortage, and that there are jobs Americans won’t do, so therefore we need more people from the third world to come and do those jobs to help the economy. Because Meloni also said that George Soros is financing many of the NGOs supporting open borders and the like, Globalist.it accuses Meloni of promoting “another dark conspiracy invented by the far right that recalls the Nazi theories against the Jews.” Had Meloni not mentioned George Soros, nothing she said would be different from standard American arguments for increasing both legal and illegal immigration, but because she mentions some financing of this movement by George Soros she is accused by globalist.it of a heinous conspiracy theory, which this BLP then parrots (while correctly characterizing the Nazis as white nationalists). Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• It's not just Globalist though. There's this piece by historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat published in a reliable source that support the statements. "George Soros, an 'international speculator,' she has said, who finances global 'mass immigration' that threatens a Great Replacement of white, native-born Italians. ... As it has grown, Meloni has walked a double line, trading in far-right conspiracy theories at times, while claiming to be a traditional conservative at others." Davide King (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• The Times and the Financial Times clearly state Meloni supported the “great replacement” theory and accused multiple times George Soros for this.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/giorgia-meloni-is-first-west-european-leader-to-believe-great-replacement-conspiracy-theory-pddmf5vsf

https://www.ft.com/content/dc79e50c-45dc-4bb4-a688-ac59d3fb1073

Giorgia Meloni calling George Soros an usurer (perpetrating the fascist prejudice of Jews as usurers).

https://twitter.com/GiorgiaMeloni/status/1109825289897549824

Giorgia Meloni accused George Soros to be complicit in his plan to deconstruct society in Europe.

https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/politica/meloni-soros-complice-piano-destrutturare-societ-1713380.html There are numerous sources to confirm this, but Anythingyouwant, who has zero knowledge in Italian and Italian politics, is constantly pushing his narrative!79.66.217.217 (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Then use those, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven Are you suggesting that the Globalist is an unreliable source? 79.66.217.217 (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence it is, RS beyond its won claim. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I have not argued for removing this particular article text, only for removing the irrelevant footnote from the unreliable source. This source doesn’t point to any statement by Meloni or any time or place when she alleged so-called great replacement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I am speechless. You have argued about the content of the articles and now suddenly you say you don't want to remove the article text. You wrote "Neither Meloni nor globalist.it refers explicitly to “great replacement”'. Make up your mind! Or at least, check the sources in English, if you don't speak Italian and you want to decide if a source in Italian is reliable or not! 79.66.217.217 (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Globalist.it does not refer explicitly to great replacement or white nationalism which is what our article text discusses, and Globalist.it does not point to any place where Meloni has done so either. Globalist.it does blame her for “another dark conspiracy invented by the far right that recalls the Nazi theories against the Jews.” But Globalist.it does not offer any evidence for this. Perhaps other sources offer evidence, but that does not justify using Globalist.it in this instance. Moreover, Globalist.it is generally unreliable, and we should provide content only if supported by reliable sources. UPDATE: In any event, this example about great replacement is now moot because User:Davide King has edited the BLP so that Globalist.it is no longer used to support this assertion.[68] Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The Article in the Globalist refers explicitly to great replacement expressed by Meloni. Here: https://www.globalist.it/politics/2019/06/19/sui-migranti-meloni-rispolvera-la-teoria-del-complotto-un-disegno-di-soros-contro-l-europa/ Your opinion on Italian press is generally unreliable, because you don't speak the language. You wrote "Neither Meloni nor globalist.it refers explicitly to “great replacement”. This is false and you are persisting writing false statements. 79.66.217.217 (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is an English translation of that cited article.. I characterized it correctly. She said the goal was to get cheap labor, not to replace anyone (perhaps she’s made the latter argument elsewhere). Happily, this BLP has recently been edited so this article from the unreliable source is no longer used with regard to replacement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

As the article states Meloni refers explicitly to a “great replacement”, accusing George Soros about it. And newspapers like FT and The Times confirm that!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/giorgia-meloni-is-first-west-european-leader-to-believe-great-replacement-conspiracy-theory-pddmf5vsf

https://www.ft.com/content/dc79e50c-45dc-4bb4-a688-ac59d3fb1073

You can moan about a source, which however you are not able to read in the original language, but this doesn't change that it is true! 79.66.217.217 (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you would like to “moan” some more about it, I suggest you do so at the article talk page by actually quoting the sentence you’re referring to, but the point is moot here at this noticeboard (because the BLP no longer cites the unreliable source regarding replacement). The question here is whether this source is reliable, including both its URL’s that include the word “news” and its URL’s that don’t. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Is Byju's considered a reliable source?

Bjyu's is an eduactional website and it generally has correct information on its pages as its concerned for competitive examinations. SpunkyGeek (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this a question? It doesn't look like one. Read the notes at the top of this page, and then explain what the website is being cited for, and in what articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is a question.

Can this website be considered for citing articles based on Fundamental rights of India. Like right to privacy or freedom of expression SpunkyGeek (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Please give specific details - the article concerned, the edit, and the webpage being cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Byju's is an exam prep website which just aggregates material so their quality varies. They are more or less questionable tertiary sources since they don't have any significant editorial oversight let alone academic peer review. The content on these type of sites are at best simplified for a high school level of understanding and at worst just misleading or even inaccurate so they can't be considered reliable sources. Same goes for most other sites like this; Jagran Josh, Testbook, etc.

It's not very clear what exactly you are trying to edit. But if you want sources for topics related to the Constitution of India then you'd need scholarly sources and there's a plethora of them. I'd suggest looking at The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution for a generalised overview. If you want more specific material then just search on JSTOR or google scholar. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Makes sense. SpunkyGeek (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Front Page

Recently on Belmont 112, a reference to the views of Larry Elder in an opinion piece by him in the FrontPage Magazine (FPM) was removed because it was "a deprecated source." I don't see where FPM is listed as not a legitimate source. But since the piece is actually written by Elder, I don't see why the source is not acceptable regardless of its general reliability. Kdammers (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

See WP:FPM. It's a far-right blog platform essentially. Also, why would Elder's opinion exactly be WP:DUE here? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

While Elder's opinions could be used in an article about Elder per WP:ABOUTSELF, using his statements as though they were factual as was being done in the Belmont 112 article, and citing it to an opinion column in FPM, is not valid. Neither Elder nor FPM is a reliable source for the purpose of the subject of that article. --Jayron32 14:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I had put Elder in to balance McWhorter. I don't see how you read them as anything other than his opinion. In any case, I'm not going to pursue this. Hemiauchenia, thank You for showing where it was listed. I had spent about ten minutes following links that were supposed to show me where to check for reliability. We should make the page easier to find. Kdammers (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Not every opinion needs an opposing opinion. If we're using Elder for his opinion, the matter is "why does Elder's opinion matter in this context?" McWhorter is a professional academic that specializes in linguistics and culture, especially among African-Americans in the US. His professional analysis, based on his work in the field, is relevant given his expertise and respect. Elder is a professional talk show host and commentator that specializes in saying things on TV and radio and writing things in newspapers, magazines, and blogs. Those professional qualifications do not make his assessment of the program relevant. If you have another genuine academic that works in a similar field, and they contradict McWhorter's analysis, fine, but the consideration needs to be the qualifications of the person, not merely that they contradict him. --Jayron32 12:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The Argus

Is The Argus (Brighton) considered a reliable source for BLP articles? It seems to have a deep controversies section, which makes me hesitant for it to be used in a BLP. It's also a local paper (not sure if that makes a difference). Thanks. — Czello 09:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Every single source is going to have controversies and occasionally publish incorrect things. One would need to judge The Argus against the standards of reliability as laid out at WP:RS, "Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest." If The Argus corrects its mistakes and discloses COIs and has clearly stated editorial policies and identifiable editorial staff and the like, it's likely reliable enough, but WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Unless and until you can tell us what Wikipedia content is being cited to which Argus article, it's hard to make blanket statements as to whether any particular one use is good. --Jayron32 14:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Is the BLP a local matter or an outside matter? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It is a reasonably reputable local newspaper, one of the relatively few surviving publications from the golden age of local print newspapers in the UK. It's regulated by IPSO, who have occassionally ruled against it, so we can assume that inaccuracies are generally identified and corrected. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

America (magazine)

Is America a reliable source? It seems to be a left-leaning Catholic publication. I did some research, and I wasn't able to find any red flags. I want to be sure though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be mostly opinion pieces, so WP:RSOPINION seems to apply. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that it is a Liberal Catholic publication but it leans right in terms of American politics (remember that both main US political parties are Liberalist parties). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

That might be true (or not, I ain't judging) but I cannot see how that would affect reliability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't, I just thought that "left-leaning" needed a bit of context. As for its reliability I have little to add to Scorpions13256's analysis, its a magazine of opinion and we have clear standards for opinion content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Flags of the world

Specifically this page: https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/cn_sep.html

This website is used as a source for flags, but it is unclear how it obtains/verifies information about flags. In its disclaimer, it is warned that "The quality of images and news varies very much: the website contains not only well-known flags but also sketches and rumours, often seized on the spot from a TV report or a magazine. In any case we disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." However, many pages on Wikipedia use Flags of the World as a source.

On this FOTW page, the referenced origins of the flags are from Twitter, which is not reliable and one is Channel News Asia's Tweet but it doesn't mention the flag.

Reliable or not AAAAA143222 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Thats a non-expert SPS, we shouldn't use it for anything besides ABOUTSELF which seems to cover none of the current uses. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Previous RSN discussion, not an RS [[69]] [[70]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Not RS - as noted in the previous discussions, the primary flaw is that anyone can become a “volunteer editor”, which runs afoul of WP:USERGENERATED. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

This is basically flag fanfic, per my comment here. Zaathras (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

PinoyParazzi

• David Licauco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At David Licauco (BLP), can the following link from PinoyParazzi be relied on for date of birth, birth name, schooling, etc?

• https://www.pinoyparazzi.net/things-you-didnt-know-about-david-licauco/

Disclaimer page: https://www.pinoyparazzi.net/disclaimer/ – Archer1234 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on that I would say no, but I am open to hearing what others say with the obvious understanding their might be information in other languages. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Top Italian Scientists

I came across this site here. Is it reliable for anything? Details of the underlying "organization" are at best murky, the content is suspect because it is apparently based solely on h-index, and the whole thing smells to me like a WP:PROMO site. Opinions? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on that I would say no for anything, but I am open to hearing what others say with the obvious understanding their might be information in Italian. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible unreliable sources in Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

I recently came across this article while reading about the current war in Ukraine, and, upon stumbling upon that article, i found several strange and sketchy sources, some examples are:
-inf.news
-afr.com
-cornucopia.se
-province.ru
among others.

i would like if someone could pass by the page and check wheter or not the sources on it are reliable, thanks. 2804:14D:4482:46D:8819:76A0:46F9:4751 (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

AFR is the Australian Financial Review, a solid RS. Please list the precise claims and cites for them that you consider "sketchy" - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I recently saw a user basically say AFR (well at least I think it was AFR) should not be used because it was a source from "Down Under". Do not agree with them but it easy to see why an IP could fall into thinking that is how WP operates, so I am taking them in good faith. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

oh, sorry, i didnt know, i never read this source so i didnt knew it was reliable, although these other sources, per below, do seem suspicious. 2804:14D:4482:46D:79F4:98A3:8102:99D6 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

As noted, afr.com is clearly fine. Cornucopia.se is a blog (hence not a reliable source), and inf.news appears to be a blog too, or perhaps something even less reliable. Province.ru looks like just another unreliable Russian source. John M Baker (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

there are other sources that i need checked:
-np.pl.ua
-shotam.info
-novynarnia.com
-spokesman-recorder.com
-censor.net
-news.am
-au.topnews.media
-oopstop
-mlyn.by
-navyrecognition.com
-ent.siteintelgroup.com
-sprotyv.info
-goloskarpat.info
-navalnews.com
-iz.com.ua
-5.UA
-milmag.pl

these seem reliable, but im unsure:
-nv.ua
-iranpress.com
-the maritime executive

by the way, these are only from the ukrainian section of the order of battle, in the russian section there are way more, but, for now, we can at least keep the ukrainian section clean, so, could someone please take a look at these sources? 2804:14D:4482:46D:D98B:C189:EAA0:CF81 (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

archive.is/archive.today

The site is widely used as a backup/archive mirror, but it is very sketchy. Nobody knows who owns it or operates it, or even which country is it associated with. See Talk:Archive.today#Ownership and like. Sure, in theory it is just a mirror, so we generaly care about sources archived in it, not the service, but I can't shake the feeling that this is suspicious. If there is a bad actor behind this service, they could manipulate archived data for their ends, etc. Should be discourage the use of this service (given that there is the reputable Internet Archive alternative)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus

Nobody knows who owns it or operates it, Such can be said for a lot of things both online and in real life. Out of all of the complaints about these sites that's the one that makes the least sense.

If there is a bad actor behind this service, they could manipulate archived data for their ends He has acknowleged this on his blog once, he said "the archive doesn't use strong anti-forging techniques" so it shouldn't be used as court evidence or something of the sort. But there is no reason to believe that he is manually editing archives.

Should be discourage the use of this service This misses the point a little. The whole point of these sites, at least to some, is that it does stuff the wayback machine doesn't do. Archive.today and Ghostarchive.org can bypass news paywalls, archive.today does a better job at Twitter, etc....... So for many of the archived pages the "reputable alternative" doesn't work. Rlink2 (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There's no evidence this site is a bad actor. None. As I noted in that #Ownership thread, it's typical for small archive providers to protect their anonymity so they are not attacked or sued by those seeking to force them to do things. Ghostarchive.org is another example. Large provides like Wayback have institutional and political support. We already favor Wayback over archive.today at least at the bot level, it only goes to archive.today when no other options exist. As for individuals, you can't stop someone from using it based on a "suspicion". Believe me I have watched them very closely for years, looking for any evidence of foul play and I have yet to see it personally or reported by anyone else indeed it has a loyal following globally. I have spoken to the owner many times, they comes across as privacy obsessed, extremely technically literate, helpful, politically neutral, and global in outlook. If someone wants to provide evidence of suspicion fine. GreenC 21:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

cseligman.com

This (wikidata) seems like a personal website of some astronomy scholar, and it is quite widely used. But what makes it reliable? Wepage artist. one Courtney Seligman, describes herself as "Professor of Astronomy", but which university is/was she associated with? In fact, her about page at https://cseligman.com/about.htm states "Once I discovered how much I preferred teaching to research I abandoned my doctoral research, so although it might be appropriate to call me "Professor Seligman", "Doctor Seligman" is incorrect". So... we are using an old-style homepage/website maintained by scholar who is not really doing research and never got a doctorate? I think we have a problem here, Houston. PS. Example of material from her site: [71]. It looks to me like old style course notes for her students that she kindly shared online, very poorly referenced if at all. And I recall few years ago we decided that such stuff is not reliable. Google Scholar suggests she has a few academic articles published, but with little impact. We could discuss whether her website falls under WP:SELFPUB: "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". Thoughts? In general, per SELFPUB "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources" we should be trying to replace any citations to her website to something more reliable, I'd think. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, Courtney Seligman is, to all appearances, male. The name Courtney is unisex; like Stacy or Tracy, it has trended female in recent decades, it is borne by people of both genders. The website itself seems to be mostly used as a convenient compendium of otherwise public-domain sources for astronomy, as here. It is not original research, and Seligman's work doesn't appear to be being used as a source for Seligman's work, but merely as a convenience link for information otherwise available also at disparate other sites; he cites his sources as well. As a source of fairly well-established, otherwise published elsewhere information, which cites its own sources, I am not particularly bothered by its use. --Jayron32 12:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone's personal organization of catalog sources does not seem like a reliable source to me: we should be using those catalog sources directly, for statements of fact (size of objects, dates of discovery, etc.). I admit I'm somewhat biased by the ~1990s layout of the website. Given the single-page layout, uninformative changelog, and lack of specificity in citations (e.g. "Physical Information" sections have a lot of text and numbers, but don't say where those came from), I definitely don't think this is what we should be citing for e.g. NED-available numbers. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)