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

RfC: Tamil Centre for Human Rights

In edit 1026680246, the source Tamil Centre for Human Rights was provided by IP Address 84.209.141.236 as WP:RS in the Article Sri Lankan Civil War, to support the original edit 1006099297.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the Tamil Centre for Human Rights

• Option 1. The source is generally reliable.
• Option 2. Additional considerations apply when citing the source - specify which.
• Option 3. The source is generally unreliable, but may be used in exceptional cases.
• Option 4. The source is not reliable and editors should not cite it.

Thanks for your time. --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. You may want to use Template:RfC so that people could see that you have posted an RfC. Other than that, I have nothing to say on the topic. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Jayingeneva (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, it is an advocacy group but taken that into consideration, it's usable although for things such as casualty figures attribution is necessary. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Allow - the most desirable sources would be ones written by neutral third parties, e.g., some international organisations or whatever..with that said, if that cannot be done and all of the data must needs come from parties to the conflict, you cannot only include only sources from one side. Since what appears to be the vast bulk of references are directly from the Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka, the Tamil sources cannot be excluded simply because they lost the war (and therefore conflicts with the so-called "official" data, which is accorded its official status solely for the grace of having been the victor in a military conflict). if there are comflicting data, just give both versions, with attributions. Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd suggest removing the RfC format here. I don't think we'll list this source at WP:RSP just based on some edits to a single article. MarioGom (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Nothing about the formatting on the website inspires confidence in me, and seeing the last modified date on some of the pages it's not an older website that just withered away. I'm not comfortable saying it's WP:GREL owing to its seeming lack of maintenance. There's a list of press releases on the website that indicate that this is an advocacy group, and some of the material regarding living people seems to be extreme. It's not clear to me that it has a history of fact-checking or accuracy, but also I really can't find much about this group from reliable sources (google news search returns very few results for their name), and the UN seems to not have looked favorably upon the group's objectivity or neutrality. None of this points towards reliability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  Mikehawk10, on a closer look, you seem to be pretty correct. I had the impression that it was related to the May 17 Movement and didn't check further, apparently it is not. It is an affiliate of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which makes it a primary source. There's a Frontline article which mentions this. The website's likely not maintained because LTTE is pretty much dead. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC — TheBlot

What do you think of the reliability of TheBlot? --DrIlyaTsyrlov (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

TheBlot website (launched in 2013 by the businessman Benjamin Wey is a tabloid magazine based in the US. https://www.theblot.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wey

(Website link)

I submit that theBlot should not be considered a reliable source for the following reasons:

1) According to the above Wikipedia page about Benjamin Way (in Summary and Career Sections):

“Since 2016 he has been facing a defamation suit stemming from statements in his website The Blot,[12][13] which he has used to attack journalists.”

The links: *https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/12/court-orders-online-tabloid-not-to-post-any-articles-about-former-obama-nominee-to-the-federal-cftc/ * https://www.reuters.com/article/lawprof-defamation-case/judge-lets-georgetown-law-professors-defamation-case-against-online-magazine-proceed-idUSL2N16B2BR * https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-benjamin-wey/

2) The website is proved to be used by Benjamin Wey as his personal retaliation and defamation tool (see the above sources from The Washington Post, Reuters and Bloomberg) and there cannot be considered as “reliable source” of information.

Here is the list of the people attacked by theBlot (journalist and politicians)

• Chris Brummer, a banking expert and Obama nominee for a governmental position

(See Reuters and Washington Post above)

• Here is one about Roddy Boyd, a former journalist for The New York Post. The journalist exposed Wey’s dubious activity and was attacked by theBlot tabloid https://web.archive.org/web/20160620135300/https://www.cjr.org/analysis/shadowy_war.php

Source: Columbia Journalism Review

• John Carnes and Francine McKenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carney_(politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francine_McKenna

https://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2014/04/benjamin-wey-threatens-investigative-reporter-francine-mckenna/

• Here is more information from the Wikipedia article about Benjamin Wey with all the sources verified in his Career Section:

Wey also publishes and writes extensively for the digital publication TheBlot (launched in 2013), where he describes himself as an "investigative reporter."[31][32] In 2015, he was named as defendant in a defamation suit stemming from his attacks on a FINRA regulator and Georgetown University law professor Christopher Brummer in the magazine. An injunction was issued preventing The Blot from writing about Brummer while the suit was pending.[33][34] In September 2017, the Electronic Frontier Foundation called on New York Court to vacate unconstitutional injunction against offensive speech.[35] On November 15, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals, First Division ruled in favor of The Blot magazine against Brummer “on the law and the facts.”[36][37] In 2016, Bloomberg Businessweek and the Columbia Journalism Review, reported that Wey used The Blot magazine to defame and threaten investigative journalists Dune Lawrence (Bloomberg Businessweek) and Roddy Boyd, who used to work for The New York Post and later founded the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation. Wey falsely accused Boyd of ties to organized crime

• Hanna Bouveng (won defamation and sexual harrassment lawsuit). She is a former employee of Wey and was personally attacked by his tabloid (later the post was removed by the court’s order) after filing a lawsuit for sexual harassment: https://nypost.com/2016/04/08/intern-accepts-reduced-5-6m-payout-from-horndog-ceo/ https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2016/04/01/403993.htm https://www.cosmopolitan.com/career/a44618/hanna-bouveng/

The case of Hanna Bouveng is in particular worrying, to tell the least.

3) Furthermore, the source is a yellow press tabloid in character, similar to Daily Mail or The Sun but much worse as it covers the topics related to spam websites border-lining with indecent topics and sensationalism just to catch any reader’s attention.

I'd be glad to hear any opinion from the experienced editors here. --DrIlyaTsyrlov (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@DrIlyaTsyrlov:, can you provide a link to the article or articles which are using The Blot as a source, in a way you object to? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, sorry for the delayed respnse. Here are the Wikipedia articles where TheBlot has been used:

1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Walken

2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozy_mystery

3)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dikran_Tulaine

4)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Da_Costa

5)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_City_of_America

6)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_%26_Mercy_(film)

7)https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diona_Reasonover

8)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel

9)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozy_mystery

I believe there are more.--DrIlyaTsyrlov (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• @DrIlyaTsyrlov: What is your brief and neutral statement? At over 4000 bytes, this RfC is far too big for Legobot to handle; the resulting entry at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals consists of a heading only and the RfC will not be publicized via WP:FRS. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10: Good point, but easily fixed because it was already there, just not signed. I normally only post messages like that when no brief statement can be discerned at all - such as if that nine-word sentence had not been present. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Not Reliable' TheBlot is an obvious mouthpiece for Wey dressed up with some churnalistic content. It is not used in many articles (en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3Atheblot.com&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1) and sometimes it is not used poorly (example play review) but it is not a reliable source and anything where it is the only possible source is probably not NPOV. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Just another political "influencer" personal opinion vector, with a clear agenda of going after mainstream journalists. It's part of the "the mainstream media are a leftist conspiracy" theory. So also WP:FRINGE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable Most of the post are not from a reliable source and are poorly written. Sea Ane (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The about page notes that The feature that sets us apart from other online publications is that you the readers can have your own voices heard, in any way or style that you would like. We welcome sensational and opinionated articles from you – the readers. You write, we publish, as long as the articles are in compliance with our Terms of Use. The Terms of Use notes that TheBlot does not edit their [user-submitted] content, therefore is protected under the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. All of this indicates that it is no more reliable than an WP:SPS and it reflects poorly upon the site's editorial standards, as there are zero editorial standards. The terms of use seem to imply that the site doesn't issue retractions under legal threats, and will keep content—even false or fabricated content—on its website, stating that for any reason if anyone is threatened with legal actions, you should know TheBlot Magazine does not settle any claims, we fight them, expose them till you the bully types drop dead. This sort of material appears to be never due, and indicative of worse editorial standards than The Daily Mail. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Probably not reliable, but given the limited usage and apparent lack of previous disputes in Wikipedia, I see no reason to deprecate it or list it at WP:RSP ([WP:RSP] is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed.). MarioGom (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Press TV on Saudi Arabian protests

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing early per the WP:SNOWBALL clause. Given the strength of opinion in the original deprecation discussion and the near-unanimous agreement below, there is no need to run this question through a full RfC. There is a clear consensus to not carve out exceptions in the deprecation of PressTV on this topic. The discussion further suggests that attempts to carve out exceptions for other topics would have a similar outcome but since that wasn't the question asked, there were not enough opinions stated to evaluate a consensus on prohibiting all carve-outs to this source's deprecation. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

---

What is the reliability of Press TV for factual-type information on protests in Saudi Arabia? Boud (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual-type information on this particular topic
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual-type reporting on this particular topic
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated factual-type information on this particular topic, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail?

Boud (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Press TV on Saudi Arabian protests)

• Option 1 or Option 2. On the particular topic of Saudi Arabian protests, the factual type information presented by Press TV is broadly consistent with that found in other reports. (The endless repetition of a single photo in many of these looks ridiculous, but doesn't invalidate the factual type claims.) At 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests, about 37 of the 201 sources are currently from Press TV, and the info used from these articles is generally consistent with the other sources, but provides details that are often not present in the others. The situation is similar in the timeline articles. In Timeline of the 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests (January–April 2011), there are about 9 Press TV sources out of 89; in Timeline of the 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests (May–December 2011) there are about 7 Press TV sources out of 63; in Timeline of the 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests (January–June 2012), there are about 28 Press TV sources out of 105; in Timeline of the 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests (from July 2012) there are about 23 Press TV sources out of 137. Some of the sources (from these articles) that broadly agree with Press TV on the protests include Human Rights Watch (HRW), March 2011, BBC, The Independent, HRW, Dec 2011, The Guardian, Amnesty International. I've proposed either Option 1 or Option 2, because broad consistency doesn't mean reliability. Having third party in-depth studies of Press TV's reliability on this particular topic would make it easier to distinguish between Options 1 and 2. I've done quite a bit of editing on these articles, and I don't remember any Press TV reports whose factual-type content (what, when, where) on these protests was later found to be misleading or outright false, so I see no evidence in favour of Option 3 or Option 4. Boud (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Boud: I mean... how do we expect to view as generally or even marginally reliable a source that reports that US officials assert that the September, 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, which killed nearly 3000 people in the US, were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists but independent analysts say it was a false-flag operation and that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was just a bogeyman for the US military-industrial complex. They believe rogue elements within the US government orchestrated or at least encouraged the 9/11 attacks in order to accelerate the US war machine and advance the Zionist agenda? There's also this article, which states that US officials assert that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists but many analysts say it was a false-flag operation and that Osama bin Laden was just a bogeyman for the US military-industrial complex. They believe rogue elements within the US government orchestrated or at least encouraged the 9/11 attacks in order to boost the US economy and advance the Zionist agenda. And there's this article from 2019, which states that US officials assert that the September, 11, 2001 attacks were carried out by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists but many experts have raised questions about the official account. They believe that rogue elements within the US government, such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, orchestrated or at least encouraged the 9/11 attacks in order to accelerate the US war machine and advance the Zionist agenda. If the source is pushing whacko conspiracy theories that there was "Zionist" involvement in orchestrating 9/11 and alleging that the Saudi royals are crypto-Jews that sell their fabulous oil wealth at a fraction of its true value in order to prop up the usury-based New World Order empire in general, and the Zionist dagger in the heart of the Middle East in particular, then I see evidence against considering it to be in any way reliable for verification of information on the Saudis, in addition to what I've presented in my top-level comment below. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep this Holocaust-denying disinformation source deprecated. Press TV is currently deprecated, and for good reason. There is no question that Press TV is a biased source; it is state-controlled and run by a chief opponent of the Saudia Arabian government. WP:BIASED states that when dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. In light of this guideline, Press TV spectacularly fails to be a reliable source that can be used to verify facts.
  • Regarding a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: in general, its reputation is extremely poor. Press TV has repeatedly promoted Holocaust Denial, and published the flagrantly false claim that the killings at Auschwitz were scientifically impossible." In 2020, it pushed blatant conspiracy theories that blamed Israel for COVID-19, writing that SARS-CoV-2 has been perhaps released and developed by the Israelis to target Iranians. Press TV has also aired forced confessions of a journalist as if they were legitimate and genuine confessions. Quite possibly the piece (with coverage from JPost) that is most emblematic of the problems with reliability at the station is one that reported that The US mainstream media is owned by Zionists dedicated to achieving a New World Order and that New World Order Zionism is also targeting the USA for destruction. The Zionist bankster elite staged a coup d'état on September 11th, 2001 aimed at turning the USA into a police state – and sending American military forces to the Middle East to smash Israel's enemies into pieces. The same piece (archived here), states that The Zionists murder or otherwise disable people they deem an actionable threat. Anyone they believe may seriously threaten Zionist New World Order interests in the future is a potential target for elimination. Another similarly unhinged piece reiterates that there is a Zionist New World Order and argues that ISIL is not a real “radical Islamic” group at all, but a Zionist false flag group and that The House of Saud may also be a family of crypto-Jews – a theory which, if true, would help explain their foreign policy and lifestyle choices. If a website repeatedly spreads Holocaust denial, baselessly claims that Israel was responsible for COVID-19 in Iran, publishes forced confessions of journalists, reports that there is a "Zionist New World Order" that "launched a coup" on 9/11 against the United States, argues that ISIS was a false flag group created by Zionists, and claims that the Saudi royals are "crypto-Jews", then we're seeing a source that's way out there conspiracy-land, and this extensive list of antisemitic conspiracy theories demonstrates that the conspiracy-promoting nature of the network's operation runs even deeper. There is absolutely no reason why the source should be considered to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, particularly when and issue may involve an party that they are not sympathetic to.
  • Regarding independence, it is overwhelmingly clear that Press TV is not independent of the government of Iran. It is the prime English language Iranian state-affiliated media outlet that has been described an "Iranian State-owned news channel" by The Washington Post and as "Iran state television’s English-language arm" by the Associated Press. There is no indication of editorial independence from Iran's government; Al Jazeera reports (in the link I have provided above) that the board which controls the network has been controlled by pro-government hardliners since the Iranian Revolution. There is no reason to think that they are providing independent coverage into these Saudi Arabian protests; they are certainly independent from the Saudis, though they are absolutely not independent from Iran.

In light of the above, the agency is clearly not independent of the Iranian government, and has been shown to have been flagrantly unreliable through its promotion of Holocaust denial and the publication of forced confessions. The paper does not appear to do enough to establish reliability for any facts; the use of Press TV simply does not provide us any sort of verification on what facts are true. This is clearly an Iranian version of the already deprecated RT, and there is no reason to admit it as "reliable" for reporting on events in Saudi Arabia when it has so many glaring issues in its fact-checking, generally. If reliable sources happen to present similar events to Press TV, then cite those sources, but citing information that is only found in Press TV seems like a formula for allowing disinformation to creep onto Wikipedia. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, just to make this point clear: this RfC's formulation does not present the typical rationale given for deprecation in Option 4. Instead, it unnecessarily and non-trivially attempts to restrict the scope of evidence that can be used to determine whether or not the source should be deprecated; it assumes a particular framework around deprecation that doesn't appear to be in line with how deprecation works. When a source is deprecated, it is deprecated in a general scope; we typically don't require a source to be shown to be bad within some narrowly constructed topic area for that topic area to be lumped in with the deprecation. For example, even if we wanted to cite The Daily Mail for information on the reported weight loss of Oman Thaher, we wouldn't do so under the current deprecation consensus (WP:BLP considerations aside), even though we have never shown The Daily Mail to have provide disreputable reporting on the topic of the guy's reported weight loss journey. It's the general reputation (or lack thereof) for fact-checking and accuracy that leads us to find the use of The Daily Mail as a citation for facts to not be consistent with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. General reputation for fact-checking and accuracy almost certainly plays a role in determining whether a source is reliable within a more narrowly constructed topic, especially when a source doesn't appear to have issued retractions for blatant and proven falsehoods within its reporting. There's clearly evidence here of the unreliability spilling into Saudi-related contexts (i.e. "crypto-Jews"), but the source should certainly be evaluated holistically. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4. I could just say "per Mikehawk10", because that covers the problems with the source quite thoroughly, but I also want to explicitly disagree with the premise of this RfC - namely, that a potential source can be deprecated... except for one particular niche topic, where it's fine. If a source is bad enough to be deprecated by the community, that means it is exceptionally untrustworthy, as can be seen by all the entries at WP:RSP that are only light red yet still say things like There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics or There is consensus that The Raw Story is generally unreliable for factual reporting, based upon a pattern of publishing false and sensationalized stories. or Republic TV was criticized for spreading misinformation about COVID-19, the Love Jihad conspiracy theory, and other fabrications and factually incorrect information. If something's gotten to the point where it's considered worse than that, we don't need to have RfCs popping up arguing that "The Daily Mail is fine for X" or "RT is fine for Y". It would be such a timesink. Attempts to propose removing a source's deprecation should be for everything (or at least very wide swaths, such as how Fox News is split (news excluding politics and science)/(politics and science)/(talk shows)), not just for one thing. Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Iran and Saudi Arabia engaged in the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, a cold war involving major conflicts like the Yemeni Civil War (2014–present). Iran is absolutely not an impartial party when it comes to Saudi Arabian protests, and therefore neither is PressTV. If the information is "broadly consistent with that found in other reports", then why not use those? Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Hemiauchenia: BBC, New York Times, The Guardian, CNN, The Independent are not completely impartial in terms of the economic and political interests of Western governments and corporations in reports on non-Western countries. This is well modelled and quantified in propaganda model. But we don't exclude these sources. They don't promote Holocaust conspiracy theories, but few of them are using the expression "Tigray genocide" to describe the war crimes in the Tigray War that are happening right now, despite the overwhelming evidence for an ongoing genocide (genocide by starvation is one of the key techniques). But we still accept these as sources for Wikipedia rather than deprecate them as apologists for the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments. "Why not use those?" Relying on those uniquely for this particular topic is insufficient because to some degree they give vague statements with less details, making them less falsifiable in the Popper sense, e.g. "20 people held a protest in city X on 23 June" is more falsifiable than "protests were recently held". Boud (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing the BBC, New York Times, The Guardian, CNN and The Independent to a state propaganda outlet that promotes holocaust denial? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Your comparison is specious, and not an example of serious sourcing debate - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 Apart from the comments above, this framing pretends that the issues raised in the previous RFC don't exist, e.g. This isn’t even really a news website, it’s state sponsored conspiratorial lies dressed up to give it an air of legitimacy. We have literally no reason to trust that anything in this source is true, and no evidence to say it is. If it's "broadly consistent" with other sources, then use those. If your only source is Press TV, and not those other sources, then you don't have a source. If you're working this hard to justify using a deprecated source, then you're doing Wikipedia sourcing wrong - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  There is no pretence that the Holocaust denial by Press TV is inexistent. The term "Context matters tremendously" is currently a consensus framing. If we had to have purely yes/no decisions on sources, than we would have no sources at all. Denial-by-omission of human rights violations, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide by most of Wikipedia's news sources are realities that we have lived with for two decades. Boud (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Boud: Here's what WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says:

  The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

  This is, supposedly, a news agency that focuses on international topics. Its principal topics would therefore be international news. We've shown, both through the previous RfC and the arguments presented in this RfC, that it promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories in its coverage. This so-called news agency states alternatively that "independent analysts," "many analysts," and "many experts" say that 9/11 was an inside job done for "Zionist" purposes. They publish unfounded speculation that the Saudis are "crypto-Jews". If we're going to use this, in any capacity, as a reliable source used to verify facts, then I think we'd all struggle to see it. There may be occasional good reporting from the source, but the fact that we can't rely upon the source to actually provide accurate information without digging to other sources to verify a particular claim made by Press TV would indicate that we can't actually use the source itself to verify claims. Deprecation formalizes this as a community consensus. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or Option 2. Press TV's often publishes propaganda and false information to prevent disparaging the Iranian government. However, that isn't to say everything it publishes is incorrect. On the Saudi Arabian protests, I can't find much problems with the coverage, like Boud. Press TV's coverage in other areas if open to question, however I think it's okay to use as a source for this specific topic, thought I do think when available, more reliable sources should be used instead. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Attribute is the thing. Press TV is definitely not the greatest source but it's OK for some stuff.Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep deprecated. Note that it does not mean automatic removal of all content sourced to it, so if indeed there is valuable information on the Saudi protests it can be tagged and replaced with more reliable sources. Alaexis_¿question? 12:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The trouble is, we have no way of knowing what is and isn't just made up by them - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. per the above arguments and other discussions about this source. JBchrch talk 19:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 for holocaust denial and being controlled by Iran generally. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Press Tv is a state owned controlled by Iran that can't be rely on. Sea Ane (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 If a source is generally so unreliable that it is deprecated, then there is no reason to make an exception for this topic. In fact, this is a topic it may well be particularly unreliable on, given the hybrid geopolitical conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Bobfrombrockley: do you mean “so unreliable that it is deprecated” and “particularly unreliable on”? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed! Thanks Mikehawk10. Editing myself now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep deprecated, the appropriate thing to do with respect to the topic is to find reliable sources for material sourced to it. If something can only be found on Press TV then we can't ascertain if it is accurate or not, in which case it's not verifiable and should be removed. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, keep deprecated Blaming the Jews for 9/11 was literally a Borat joke, back in the day... And carving out a narrow niche where a deprecated source can suddenly be trusted is just, well, silly. XOR'easter (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 no exception for niche topics where some happen to like the coverage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Mikehawk10 and Headbomb, it is unreliable period.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Press TV can be used to cite two claims: the year it was founded and who works there (though, I would still be rather hesitant to use Press TV as a source for the latter claim). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Press TV on Saudi Arabian protests)

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

Biology of sex

I found this source it’s called biology of sex. I think y’all see and what articles I want to use it. Aka sex and sexual reproduction. I have mixed feelings other this sources reliability. I looked up online and it’s published by University of Toronto Press which is owned the University of Toronto. Which is one the best universities in Canada.(also checked its in the top 25 universities in the world on some sites.) So appeared to be reliable.

Unfortunately finding information on the author is hard. The best I could find on this guy is what I believe may be his LinkedIn. So what do you guys think, how reliable do y’all think this source is?CycoMa (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It says it's Intended primarily for readers without a science background. If we rely upon sources like that to write science articles, we're basically gathering up whatever has fallen to the bottom of the cliff. On rare occasions, popularizations will include interesting material that more serious books don't, like biographical details based on interviews (The Man Who Loved Only Numbers comes to mind, for example). But for the most part, they're one more link in a game of telephone. XOR'easter (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

So basically it’s not an ideal source.CycoMa (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

But any way do any of you guys think it would be okay?CycoMa (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, no, it's very unlikely that it would be usable as a source. There are much better sources we can use for information about sex and reproduction, and our aim is to summarise the best sources on any subject. Girth Summit _(blether) 05:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It says it is a textbook for students who don't have a science background. Without citing line and verse of rs policy, I would say that you should not use texts written for non-science students when texts written for science students are available. TFD (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't take this amiss, but you keep coming to RSN repeatedly with random sources that support a particular view on this topic, many of which it should be obvious are not reliable sources under well-established Wikipedia rules and guidelines. It's possible you should consider that this may not be a good way to proceed in a contentious editing area, and understanding why people keep telling you these sources aren't very good may be an idea before continuing on this path - David Gerard (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Some reliable sources

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

---

1. Article: Inside Out (2015 film)

2. Sources:

• Dabu, Bianca Rose (May 5, 2015). "Pinoy, co-director sa isang Disney-Pixar film na ipapalabas sa Cannes Filmfest" [Pinoy, co-director in a Disney-Pixar film to be screened at Cannes Filmfest]. GMA Network (in Filipino).
• "Exclusive: Riley From Disney-Pixar's 'Inside Out' Returns in New Animated Short, 'Riley's First Date'". ABC News. August 13, 2015.
• Anders, Charlie Jane (October 6, 2015). "How Pixar's Inside Out Avoided Its Greatest Danger: Becoming An "After-School Special"". Gizmodo.
• Anderson, Kyle (November 3, 2015). "Blu-ray Review: Pixar's Inside Out Has a Lot to Feel Good About". Nerdist Industries.
• Shaul, Brandy (June 18, 2015). "Disney Launches Inside Out Thought Bubbles on Mobile". Adweek.
• Wallace, Kimberley (May 28, 2015). "Everything We Know About Disney Infinity 3.0's Inside Out Play Set". Game Informer.

Are GMA Network, ABC News, Gizmodo, Nerdist Industries, Adweek, and Game Informer reliable? It is possibly considered to be an FA per Talk:Inside Out (2015 film)/GA1. Chompy Ace 21:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Adweek is one of the two major US advertising industry trade publications alongside AdAge, definitely reliable. Gizmodo and ABC News are also reliable sources. No opinion about the rest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Chompy Ace Not sure why you pinged me, as I don't usually work on film articles, and I don't have a lot of experience with FA and GA reviews. That being said, I'm not too good to take a look if asked politely, and this certainly seems polite enough.

The only one of those sources I'm really questioning is GMA Network, and only because I have no experience with the Philippine television market, so I'm not sure how to evaluate it. ABC News is obviously an RS, Gizmodo and the Nerdist should be just fine, as they have editorial oversight and a good rep, and I'm pretty sure that applies to Adweek and Game Informer as well, from what I can tell with a quick look. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chompy Ace:, I don't see what the issue with the reliability of these sources is or why there is anything in the GA review that provoked this. Could you be more specific in what you are asking? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: six of those sources' reliability to be used for a potential, possible FA (note it can be a very tough process), even for a such review does mean for such reliability, as for "What makes [...] an high-quality RS?" Chompy Ace 22:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chompy Ace:, I'm not an expert in FA's and I'm not sure why you asked me in particular but I'll try to answer. I'm guessing that, "even for a such review does mean for such reliability." means something like, "are these acceptable as reliable sources for a FA review." Reliability of a source is not judged abstractly but in the context in which its used and I'm sorry but I still don't see that here. That said, I don't see that any of these articles would automatically be rejected, but how some of them, the AdWeek and Game Informer ones particularly, would depend on what the sources said and what part of the article they were used to support. Determining if that was appropriate for this article is what the FA process is for, though (at least in part). It's not really the type of question that this noticeboard handles. I'm sorry if that's not a helpful as you would have liked. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I withdraw it. Chompy Ace 20:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:MEDRS has an RFC

WP:MEDRS has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, thank you for writing this very excellently worded RFC. Its narrow scope and potential for less overall headache is appreciated. I have personally done it both poorly and slightly better in recent history, and greatly value the model to work from.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion should probably be added to Template:Centralized discussion. I don't have enough experience with templates to make this change. JBchrch talk 23:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added it [1]. Thanks for the heads up --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Using an anonymous Twitter account that translates announcements by the Taliban as a source for a live situation map of the war in Afghanistan

1. Source: An anonymous twitter feed (@RisboLensky) that (apparently) translates announcements by the Taliban as to which towns/villages it has taken in Afghanistan. I say "apparently" as it itself is not clearly attributing these announcements to the Taliban - it's not clear who it is attributing them to. See here for an example: https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1409930228261085185

2. Article: This is used as a source for creating this situation map on Wiki Commons that is in turn used on the page Taliban insurgency and others.

3. Content: The map shows specific territory as having fallen to the Taliban. For example it shows the city of Balkh near Mazar-i-Sharif in Northern Afghanistan as having entirely fallen to the Taliban (this seems to have been added to the map in this edit dated 23 June 2021). Reports from Reuters date 22 June 2021 do not match this, instead referring to Taliban sources as saying that the Taliban entered the suburbs of Balkh before retreating (the most recent news report from the area). FOARP (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course it's not reliable and the creator(s) of the map should review WP:RS. Even if this map was created on Commons, our sourcing requirements are enforced as soon as it is used on an article here. This isn't even acceptable in an WP:ABOUTSELF sense of "the Taliban claims..." because there's no assurance of who or why the account is being operated. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I would not consider this a reliable source even if we knew for a fact that the translations were accurate and the source was unquestionably Taliban announcements. Propaganda is a weapon, and not exactly an uncommon one, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There is some usage of their tweets by other media such as India Today, ANNA News, however I'm not sure if the use sufficiently widespread to apply WP:USEBYOTHERS. Alaexis_¿question? 10:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Even if it were that widespread, I'd still not trust it. Propaganda can be newsworthy, after all.

Note that I'd say the same if the original source were the US Army. Trusting a military (professional or otherwise) to be publicly honest about its actions and successes in the moment (as opposed to 20 years later) is a recipe for disappointment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

If the account was verifiably representing the Taliban in some official capacity, then I would be fine for using it a SPS to verify that what we report they are claiming is something they actually claimed (e.g. "Taliban sources claimed on date that they had captured the city of Balkh" [cite: representative-on-twitter]) (whether such our reporting such claims is DUE will vary and is anyway outside the scope of this board). As the connection to the Taliban is uncertain in this case we can't use it even for that though, as we don't know whether the Taliban are actually claiming that. If the tweets are reported in reliable sources though we could use phrasing like "India Today reported Taliban claims that ..." or better yet "Multiple sources reported Taliban claims that..." to make it clear we aren't saying the Taliban claimed the thing, we're just saying India Today (or whoever) are claiming the Taliban claimed the thing. Directly verifiable sources though are obviously preferable. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Twitter would be an SPS, so are they an acknowledged...Ohh no we do not know who they are. No it's not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

mainlinediesels.net

Ten articles use references to mainlinediesels.net. The site's about us page makes it clear that this a trainspotter fan-site full of self-published information by the site owner and her contributors. I have tagged the references in all ten articles with the {{Unreliable source?}} template. One such example is Direct Rail Services. I can provide the others here if you wish. --10mmsocket (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is clearly self-published. It's probably accurate and the uses I spotchecked were not exactly controvserial but better sources should be used where possible. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Skift

This has been used on many pages. The Wiki page of this has a paid tag which is clearly a bad sign. But, that shouldn't necessarily mean that it can't be considered a reliable source at all in any case (I guess). This has stemmed from a discussion with an editor who wants to use this [2] as a source. Since there is no existing discussion on Skift, I thought would be good to start one and have it archived for future references. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

File/image sources

Not sure if this is the best place to ask (and if there's a better place, please chime in) but there's been some discussion about whether or not to use IMP Awards (worth noting that that is, currently, and likely to remain, a redlink) as a source for movie posters/images. Specifically, at File:Black Widow (2021 film) poster.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Initially a Twitter source from the official Marvel Studios account was used (https://twitter.com/MarvelStudios/status/1409919596736356354/), but this was removed and replaced with an IMP Awards link (http://www.impawards.com/2021/black_widow_ver21.html) with the justification being WP:SOCIALMEDIA. It would seem that nobody involved has actually read WP:SOCIALMEDIA, specifically that it says (notes I've added in red/superscript):

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;^{A movie poster is hardly an "exceptional claim" and certainly not "unduly self-serving"}
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;^{definitely not}
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;^{definitely not}
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity^{these types of tweets track with other tweets made by the account in the past}; and
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.^{definitely not, the article where the image is used is filled with a variety of secondary sources}

This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook.

I discussed this on the talk page of the reverting editor, however they protested that IMP Awards is used as a source for a large number of other posters in movie-related articles. This rings of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and my feeling is that these are actually WP:LINKSPAM (which gets us to WP:OTHERSPAMEXISTS). Clearly the images are high quality, likely from media/press kits from the studios, and the actual source of the image would correctly be (in this instance) "Marvel Studios" (no need for an IMP Awards link or a link to the @MarvelStudios tweet). IMP Awards is filled with banner ads and even with ad-blocking turned on, they have affiliate links to Amazon and eBay to "search for posters" prominently displayed. Alexa rankings has them ranked at #31,742 of all sites (and part of me wonders if that high ranking is because of all the inbound links they get from Wikipedia), and there's no indication they are used anywhere else. One argument has been that IMP Awards has higher quality images, however, per our fair-use criteria, at the resolutions we work with, the Twitter source still exceeds that. Thoughts? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Why not just go to the studios website and use their poster?Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

True, they have a variation on the poster here. The bottom section of the poster mentions Disney+ and theaters, but it's still technically a "poster". I'm more concerned with what status IMP Awards has here given the spammy-vibe it gives off. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing for non-free content - that is, where the image was originally obtained to show previous publication - does not need to follow RS sourcing rules. It should be from a source that either would have likely copyright ownership or would be a reasonable entity that would distribute that work. For example, if I used a movie posted from an article posted at Variety, that would be fine as Variety would be expected to be reasonable distributor.

That said, whether the image shows what is actually being described may require an RS-type source. We're not going to doubt the movie poster case, for example. However, if we are talking a picture of a long-dead person, who's appearance wasn't well known, a random source likely would not work, we'd want a source that is reliable that affirms this person's identity (like a historical society). --Masem (t) 04:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. Any source that would reasonably be expected to be republishing posters would be fine. SOCIALMEDIA doesn't really apply in this instance. The official Marvel Studios twitter account would absolutely be a reliable as a source for an official movie poster. If that is where the uploader got the image from, then that is what the source should be documented as in the file description. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Adult industry sources

Are the following two sources generally reliable for news reporting and WP:RSOPINION statements in their area of expertise (the adult industry)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual-type information on this particular topic
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual-type reporting on this particular topic
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated factual-type information on this particular topic, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail?

AVN (magazine)

• Option 1 As far as I'm aware, here hasn't been any particular controversy in regarding to AVN magazine and its journalism. It is a the prime source for the subject area and so seems one of the most appropriate sources to use. Silverseren^C 21:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, I think: as we quote in our article on the magazine, The New York Times called it "an industry magazine that is to pornographic films what the trade publication Billboard is to records" in 2000. We currently consider its awards significant on bios. It seems of comparable quality to a trade publication in any other subject area. If we reject AVN, I'm not sure what better sources there are on the sex industry. — Bilorv (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Additional consideration in that AVN does publish press releases as is, but does mark them as such. (Compare the labeled articles in this AVN search[3]) Those press releases can not be relied on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 for non-sponsored content and non-press release content as per Morbidthoughts. Otherwise needs an Option 2 disclaimer. I would say this is analogous to the sponsored content produced in many other news venues like The New York Times, The Economist, Wired, and others. [4] We should not trust such content as RS, but for the rest, I think it's probably okay.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

XBIZ

• Option 1 Being responsible for one of the main award competitions for the adult industry and not seeing any issues reported elsewhere regarding their journalistic side, I see no reason why they aren't a top level source for this specific subject matter. They aren't schlock celebrity news or anything like that. Silverseren^C 21:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, I think: this one I've used in GirlsDoPorn (warning for sexual abuse: you need a really strong stomach to click that link) and found it as reliable as all the internet culture websites (The Daily Beast, Vice) and local coverage (NBC 7 San Diego) that broke the story and the mainstream sources that re-reported it (New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald). The Washington Post asked the president/publisher for a quote in their article. As with AVN, it's a trade publication and if we reject it there's not much we can write about the sex industry. — Bilorv (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - XBIZ publishes press releases as is, but does not mark them as such. They used to. They're somewhat easy to catch since they list no author (like AVN), but I would not rely on XBIZ for anything contentious. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 as per above, I think the issue is that they can produce sponsored content and not give it much definition to separate it. I would say that this means we should not use it for controversial matters, but otherwise GR. The industry is so extremely ad-based, that it makes sense that these considerations are a bigger problem here than elsewhere. Even more than typical journalism outlets which have a higher proportion of donors and subscribers.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

BGlobal

Over at Talk:Britannia (TV series) a request has been made based upon a story published in something called BGlobal. I have no idea what it is (and am having trouble finding it). So is it in fact an RS for (what are) claims of Plagiarism and Fraud?Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, please see previous discussion on this board. Schazjmd (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

So is britannia-news.org (which seems to be the actual source for the article being cited) an RS for the claim?Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

BY the way the claim is it was in BGlobal; #1; 21.08. - 20.09.29; pp 123-125; BGlobal Media Ltd; EAN 9770273869611.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Britannia-news.org is Ben Krushkoff's personal website on which he posts content in support of his claims. As I said in the previous discuss (that I linked above), I found BGlobal's website but was unable to find any evidence on that site that there was such an article published. If it was in a paper-only publication, I don't know how we could go about verifying that. Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

But we can access it general reliability, what is its over all reputation, is it good enough for what is a claim of criminal action?Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It is talking up a huge amount of time and effort, and it would be best if we could give an answer.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Take a look:BGlobal. It's a Bulgarian business magazine. I would not accept it as sufficient WP:WEIGHT for a WP:BLPCRIME claim. I haven't even found unreliable sources (WP:DAILYMAIL etc) that give even the briefest mention to this claim. Everything goes back to Ben Krushkoff's personal websites. There is no independent recognition of his accusations of fraud and plagiarism. As he has apparently been unable to get any media attention to his claims, he's been trying for over a year to get it documented on Wikipedia. As you can see from the previous discussions here and on the article talk page, multiple editors have gone through this whole thing before. Schazjmd (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Taht would be my take, but the user is not listening to me, so thought I would get a few more opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Engaging in that talk page discussion is basically entering the suck zone. Schazjmd (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This shit again? Really? Looks like Arbcoms decision to unblock was a mistake. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I could not agree more, Hemiauchenia. Schazjmd (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Not the place for that discusion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

For an actual discussion of the source, it fails WP:EXCEPTIONAL criteria #1. Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Same small clique of editors trying to stop the article accurately representing all significant views on the subject. Hmmmm....

It, the article, was featured in the printed version (BGlobal; #1; 21.08. - 20.09.29; pp 123-125; BGlobal Media Ltd; EAN 9770273869611), which meets Wiki guidance on being WP:PUBLISHED. I believe there is an exchange board here that I could post it on for you (even though it's been republished elsewhere online). The fact that nobody has asked to see a copy tells me enough, in spite of the fact it comes from a respected magazine with a strict code of ethics.

You can group together and trash the sources myself (in the past) and now others are using to fairly justify inclusion of this dispute in the article, all you like. But they exist for the world to see and come from highly reputable experts. Have any of you written an Academy Award nominated script? Ran the Scriptwriting course at the UK's pre-eminent Creative Writing University? Owned the world's leading script editing company? Worked at a faculty that specialises in IP Law training future IP lawyers? I'm seriously interested. SethRuebens (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place to rehash the arguments, only to access the reliability of the source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Same small clique of editors trying to stop the article accurately representing all significant views on the subject ignores the fact that WP:NPOV actually says which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, and the objection is that the viewpoint is one that's completely ignored by reliable references. Personal websites are no use. Even if this magazine article is deemed reliable, there are WP:WEIGHT issues. I'm unsure why they even bothered to unblock a single purpose account with an axe to grind that's only ever edited one article that they are now banned from editing. FDW777 (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

"This Week in Virology" (TWIV) Podcast

• Source: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/
• Article: Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
• Content: The Podcast regularly hosts experts in Virology commenting on news and recently-released scientific papers and reports about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 . For example, a recent episode (No. 774) hosted Kristian Andersen, who said it was important to "get more data from full-length genomes from early cases in Wuhan" when discussing a recent preprint about early unearthed viral sequences from Wuhan.

Please discuss whether the statements and opinions of experts hosted in this podcast's episodes are reliable as sources. In particular, comment on how high this source would rank vs: newspapers, scientific journals, other non-science podcasts, etc. Forich (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Reliable for attributed statements to content experts. On the same level as journalistic outlets without an editorial board.

Personally I would categorize this like other secondary sources that are only useful for attributed statements. I think we can and should use quotations and paraphrases from these episodes. I actually love this show, and listen to it whenever I get the chance. I've seen him record it a few times, like when Vincent Racaniello (the host) was invited to give the keynote at the annual American Society for Virology conference in 2017, and was the president of ASV in 2015. He's a very well respected expert, and writes some of the most important textbooks in the field.

That being said, as far as I know, TWIV does not have an editorial board, or any kind of peer review, etc. So it should not be put on the same level as, say, Science-Based Medicine, which does have those things, and definitely not as high as peer-reviewed publications.

It's very widely listened to among young virologists and those in training, but not really among practicing professor-level virologists in my experience. That has changed during the pandemic, when its clinical update episodes have become a staple of discussions among my fellow virus-people and have been cited by several primary care docs I know as key to staying up to date on the literature. I would say the majority of its listeners are non-experts, but that experts, on the whole, do respect the show and its guests.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

"Titles, Styles, and Honors" sections/articles are inundated with garbage sources

Almost every vaguely-noble person has a section listing their titles, styles, and honors. These are invariably riddled with awful sources (the most common are bare images posted on royalty forums where someone has identified the sash being worn (or worse: <ref>For the sake of identification of the Order of the Golden Heart, here is a page about another recipient</ref>, but there are also tons of blogs, tumblr, pinterest...even just bare statements like <ref>King Carl XVI is a known worldwide supporter of scoutism</ref>) that were introduced in the early 2010s by a now-inactive editor. Each of these "honors" also has its own page listing all recipients, with the same trash sources. I've managed to rid wikipedia of references to noblesseetroyautes.com (a glorified blog) and am working through theroyalforums.com, but this is a problem across probably tens of thousands of articles and involving hundreds of different sources. And since each article contains at least a dozen honors etc. it takes a lot of time to comb through their references -- for example, the above Swedish honours article featured 15,000 bytes of bad refs, and Princess Benedikte had 10,000. Even the reliable sources for many of these honors are problematic -- see the refnote here with the instructions <ref>Portuguese Presidency Website, Orders [http://www.ordens.presidencia.pt/?idc=154&list=1 search form] : type "RAINHA SÍLVIA" in "nome", then click "Pesquisar"</ref>.

As an aside, it's not clear to me that these honors sections are actually DUE, especially since 99% of the good references are primary with zero coverage outside the awardee's website and/or the awarding government's database of recipients. But that's an issue for another noticeboard.

Anyway, I'd like to know if there is a more automated way of dealing with this junk, and if not I would request some help clearing it out. I have a small list of the worst blog/forum offenders here, which I do insource: searches on to find articles, and then manually go through all the references to get rid of the "s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com"-type refs and images hosted on reliable sites that would return a lot of valid uses if searched. JoelleJay (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, listing all the titles and honors is a form of WP:NOTCV, in the very same way that exhaustive lists of all the awards received by scientists and academics are not acceptable. This is especially the case in this context since the titles and honors do not recognize any achievements are just empty medals that they award to each other. 95% of them are WP:UNDUE, so we can dispense with finding and evaluating reliable sources. JBchrch talk 22:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning these up! I try to help when I notice this type of things, but I don't have great ideas for a systematic way of finding them. German "nobility" is especially terrible, as the concept of German nobility has been abolished 100 years ago, but many editors still like to decorate Mr Prinz von Preussen with various fantasy titles and styles. —Kusma (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

these are as official as Wikipedia Barnstars Love it. JBchrch talk 01:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Vice on Bret Weinstein

Bret Weinstein who made headlines back in 2017 due to the 2017 Evergreen State College protests, has returned as one of the main champions of Ivermectin an, anti-parasite drug that has been promoted as an effective cure for COVID-19, in the same way that Hydroxychloroquine was earlier in the pandemic, despite there being no good evidence for its effectiveness. Bret Weinstein's promotion of Ivermectin has been covered in two articles in Vice, Why Is the Intellectual Dark Web Suddenly Hyping an Unproven COVID Treatment? from the 24th of June and The Ivermectin Advocates' War Has Just Begun from the 1st of July. An IP on the talkpage is claiming that Vice is a low quality source than should not be used on BLP articles, and therefore these articles should be excluded. I am just not seeing the issue here. The claims that the Vice articles are making are not contentious. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I would definitely say that VICE is fairly low quality (although just on the “reliable” side of the line) … It is prone to click-bait. There are far better sources that talk about both the drug and Dr. Weinstein’s recent promotion of it, use them instead. Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Unless there are factual inaccuracies in this specific case, there is no reason to not use it. Headlines are not reliable and everyone especially publishers on the internet are prone to click-bait, that doesn't make them either high or low quality on its own. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The headline is irrelevant and I agree with you regarding click bait titles. The problem in my opinion is using VICE as a reliable source given the pretty obvious narrative and selectively ignoring certain pieces of it. For example, a new vice article that came out yesterday by the same author as this one associates Ben Shapiro and Bari Weiss with weinstein and their quackery, yet I imagine I would face severe backlash if I wanted to add relevant sections to their living biography entries detailing how they are spreading misinformation (according to vice entertaining the idea ivermectin is valid is quackery and there is no censorship occurring). I elaborated here with a much more detailed breakdown of my opinion on the NPOV noticeboard. I was the IP user that Hemiauchenia is referring to and just registered. FrederickZoltair (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

There is one glaring issue with the Vice article "The Ivermectin Advocates' War Has Just Begun". It cites Roman et al.'s recent meta-analysis to "prove" that Ivermectin doesn't work. Except that meta-analysis actually says that Ivermectin reduces deaths by 63%. If some editors feel that the Vice article is a "hit piece" designed to make the subject look bad, then it should be excluded from a BLP article. I've been complaining about this publicly and consider myself recused from the topic in article space. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

that meta-analysis actually says that Ivermectin reduces deaths by 63% ← a most unfortunate mis-statement. To quote from the conclusion: "In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality" [my emphasis]. Alexbrn (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

If only. The pre-print at Medrxiv of Roman et al. comes to the conclusion that IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality (your emphasis) based on data that showed RR 1.11, ie 11% more deaths in ivermectin patients. Except their data was wrong in the pre-print. When corrected, it showed IVM had RR 0.37, ie 63% fewer deaths. They forgot to update their conclusions. Vice absolutely cannot rely on Roman et al. to claim that Ivermectin is ineffective and that Weinstein is spreading "misinformation". (I must note there are other, more reliable sources that can show Bret Weinstein's "ivermectin is more effective than vaccines" claims are ludicrous). You could also note (accurately) that the meta-analysis only looks at 5 studies for death-rate and one has the ludicrously low N=24; that's just more evidence that Vice should not be using that study for anything. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you citing a preprint? The source cited is plain in its wording, and your statement about it was just wrong. Mistakes are okay, but persistent misrepresentation of sources might start people wondering. Please don't insert your WP:PROFRINGE fancies into Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm citing the pre-print to explain how the mistake happened. Are you claiming that "reduction in deaths by 63%" is in fact no reduction at all, or are you claiming the study doesn't claim there is a reduction in deaths by 63%. If you feel WP:PROFRINGE means that all rigor and logic is abandoned for studies which make politically correct conclusions, I will have to suggest that you are the one in error. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm suggesting (no, in fact, I'm telling you) that Wikipedia likes to reflect high-quality, scholarly, reputable, peer-reviewed sources; not the WP:PROFRINGE reckonings of random editors dumbly churning out talking points from social media. Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

As there was also a post at BLP/N, there's two things being sourced to Vice: one is in the lede about "spreading COVID-19 misinformation" and the second in the body about he and his wife taking the "medication" on a live stream and what they said during that, and subsequently YouTube demonetizing the channel. While Vice is a lower-quality source, on the latter claims, these are not contentious information from the standpoint that both points are easily verified (watching the video and reading the tweet - though argubly the YT demonetization should be "According to Weinstein, YouTube demonetized...") and thus are fine. The claim that is misinformation however is tenacious, as well as having both potentially UNDUE and RECENTISM problems for being a focus in the lead. If anything, using Vice for this should 1) not be in the lede but can be in the body and 2) should be in-line attributed to Vice. --Masem (t) 00:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I had concerns about the lead claims being undue editorialising, but that's a wording issue that has nothing to do with the reliability of Vice. I should note that there is no need to attribute the demonetisation to Weinstein, as a YouTube spokesman confirmed the demonetization to Vice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, to a degree, yes, Vice's lower-quality reliability means we should be careful with claims they make verses more factual statements, in contrast to a work like the New York Times. And claims only made by one or two lower-quality sources shouldn't get highlighted in the lede of any article. --Masem (t) 04:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Given the VERY short length of the lead I have to say this really looks problematic in the lead. I also have a lot of issues with Politifact as I have a list of perhaps 5 or 6 cases where their assessments are questionable. For example, the presented facts seem reasonable but they either don't support the conclusion or they could reasonably support an alternative conclusion vs the one PF used. I strongly agree with Masem's comment here [[5]] that the problem here is the lead is applying a scarlet letter in Wiki-voice without actually providing a full telling of Weinstien's position/arguments etc. Springee (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I just got around to finishing the JRE podcast in question with Kory and Weinstein that inspired my original comments on the weinstein talk page (It aired on June 22nd, 2021). It is pretty obvious they are not being deceptive nor spreading misinformation, and go out of their way to be very clear regarding the controversial nature of both claims and the very obvious lack of clear factual evidence and go on to confirm that they are looking for answers and not peddling them and their primary interest is saving lives. If you have spotify the exchange begins at 132:51 and lasts several minutes. The Vice article is definitely being unfair in their representation of Weinstein, Kory, and their claims in general. I added specific information to [4 in the NPOV noticeboard] section regarding the specifics. It should call the credibility of VICE into question, as well as be a reliable source that this exchange occurred itself and as of yet has not been censored or removed by Spotify. FrederickZoltair (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Err what? From the sources we know that Weinstein has said the vaccine is "dangerously" cytotoxic, that he and his family aren't getting vaccinated but instead taking ivermectin - and indeed he took it live "on air" in a piece framing Big Pharma's cover-up of this supposed wonder drug as the "crime of the century". So it's a plain mix of antivaxx, quackery and conspiracism. For his pains he got removed from Youtube (unsurprisingly). Not surprisingly this has been picked up by some sources. The only "fair" representation of this stuff is to contextualize it with what we know from reliable, respectable sources: the vaccines work, and are not dangerous; ivermectin has no benefit for preventing or treating COVID-19 and is not a vaccine alternative. Saying otherwise is misinformation. It's is not Wikipedia's job to indulge nonsense, but to call it what it is in line with relevant sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry let me clarify: Even if you do not want to entertain weinstein's/Dr. Kory's ideas and recent claims personally about their motivations or perspectives you should at minimum listen to the the JRE podcast timestamp I linked because the context offered about the recent controversy being covered is extremely important to the overall landscape and in addition is a core guiding principle behind NPOV. Secondly, JRE/Bari Weiss/Ben Shapiro are very large and popular sources of news and media not known for quackery or deceptive practices (Some people may disagree, I do not follow any of them) and per Wikipedia:BALANCE, should have their views accounted for in relation to this controversy (They both have BOLP entries already that do not associate them with quackiness or misinformation). Even if you do not want to include them, the fact that all of the mentioned personalities in the VICE article are unanimously saying weinstein and co claimed X not Y and are indeed being censored means that opinion should be represented in some capacity if the lede is to stay as is. Individually any one of them alone tip the balance out of being an outlier opinion and altogether comprise a loud chorus with a significant following. Weinstein himself, and all of his recent guests (like Dr Malone, Dr Kory etc) are saying "we claimed X, not Y, and would never claim Y because it would be irresponsible to do so and furthermore we made a distinction between the data we have and the data we need". What reason do you have for failing to entertain the possibility of those statements being true or being made in good faith as neither is previously notable for quackery and their credentials are valid and not in question in addition to Kory being a practicing MD? To proceed with the entry as is, requires an investment into a particular narrative. Wikipedia cannot change reality, but alleging that VICE and other heavily biased media sources (left or right) that coincidentally support a specific narrative that somehow supersedes the claims of the subject directly, should be the only representative of reality in a BOLP is the problem in my opinion and ignores very vital context and in addition also ignores that this is a currently developing situation. At minimum it calls for removal until this information is certified factually incorrect which given the disagreement between both sides about what was claimed I think is fair. Per WP:GEVAL, academia relies on peer reviewed research and clinical trials to establish scientific consensus (Not individuals like Dr Goreski or twitter posts by doctors, or their blogs etc) which as of this moment have not been completed yet. Note I am not calling for removal of the covid section, just the troubling statement in the lead. As a side note, using what Youtube administration does as evidence for or against something is a bit silly. Youtube is currently embroiled in a controversy for suppressing information regarding the Uyghur genocide in China reported by international human rights activists and the UN. You can read that Reuters article here. FrederickZoltair (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't listened to the podcast in question but if Vice is misrepresenting what was said (removing qualifying/limiting statements, making a passing comments into pillars of a claim etc) then we can say *this* Vice article is not a RS. Having heard Weinstein talk about this general subject in other context I think he has been very careful to say what is and is not known. I think some of the claims in the PF article would be inconsistent with statements I have heard in other Weinstein discussions. This is a case where an ABOUTSELF quote may be needed given the nature of the claims against him and their so-so sources. Again, for this to be in the lead is very problematic in my book. Springee (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• The biggest problem we have here is WP:RECENTISM. When events are unfolding, we run the risk of making more of the event than it merits. Will it matter in a year or two? At this point we don’t know. Thus, one solution is to not mention the event at all… at least until we have a clearer picture as to how it plays out. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Elon Musk's Tweets

Elon Musk's tweets are often used in SpaceX articles such as SpaceX Starship. He is the owner of SpaceX and often announces things before anyone else. Can these be used as sources? Here are examples of Elon Musk's tweets about SpaceX: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1410670645948653568/photo/2 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1410537991236243461/photo/1 Elon Musk Tweet Elon Musk Tweet 2StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

As an SPS they can be used for statements that are uncontroversial. But should be treated like any other corporate press accmo8uncment, as non-neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Didn't we have this discussion recently? They are primary sources from SpaceX (or Tesla, ...), so they are fine for statements like "SpaceX plans ...", "SpaceX/Musk announced..." (explicitly, or implicitly if it's obvious/uncontroversial). --mfb (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mfb: Just so everyone knows, I will be on vacation starting today. I don't plan to return until the end of August. I won't be editing Wikipedia during that time. This is probably my last edit until I come back. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

They should be fine as long as the announcement is reasonably uncontroversial and not self serving.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)