Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 399

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources | Noticeboard

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Steelpillow (talk | contribs) at 03:42, 22 October 2023 (Undid revision 1181273954 by SurferSquall (talk) Do not post-edit archive discussions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 395←Archive 397Archive 398Archive 399Archive 400Archive 401→Archive 405

Seymour Hersh

  • Hersh, Seymour (February 8, 2023). "How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline". Substack. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
  1. Can this source be linked in a list of works at Seymour Hersh?
  2. Can this source be cited with attribution at Seymour Hersh?
  3. Can this source be cited with attribution at 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage?

Thanks, Levivich (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  • I think the answer to #1 is "yes", because it's not being "used as a source" (WP:SPS), it's a significant work by the subject of the article, and including a link to it is helpful to the reader. We're not using it to source any content in the body of any article, under #1. For #2 and #3, I'm not as sure, I think it comes down to WP:ABOUTSELF #3, which is "it does not involve claims about third parties", and the source does involve claims about third parties (governments of US and Norway), and we wouldn't use the source in either article as a source about Hersh, we'd be using it as a source about the sabotage and who Hersh alleges is responsible. So for that reason I lean 'no'. On other hand, since we're already including this content in both articles sourced to other reliable sources (The Times, Reuters), it seems like what's the harm of including a citation to the original piece for the convenience of our reader? So for that reason, I lean 'yes'. Levivich (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
My gut reaction is quite similar to yours -- sure to #1, and okay to #2, given that the information already exists elsewhere. I would personally say no to #3, basically because I would see that as implicitly giving the work Wikipedia's imprimatur of reliability, and I don't think that's warranted. As ever, reasonable minds can differ. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I would be on board with that Solomonic decision. Levivich (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Same, unless we are revaluating substack and independent publishing as a whole, Hersh decided to publish without editorial oversight and by our policies is of limited use. It's also investigative journalism, which is usually Primary anyway. That said, we should strive to provide readers with Primary materials that aid their own reading and understanding of the subject. Slywriter (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
We routinely source, say, Donald Trump's views to his Twitter account in his article. How's that different from sourcing Hersh's opinions to his blog? — kashmīrī TALK 21:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Do we? Take another look at Donald Trump... There is only one use of a twitter account as a source and it isn't Trump's. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
In the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage article there is literally a paragraph section about a tweet, with the tweet used as a citation, that goes on longer than the section about Hersh. Spudst3r (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
They didn't say 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, they said Donald Trump. There is no reason for that page to be using tweets either, they're entirely redundant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes to all three.
Hersh is a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist who broke multiple truthful stories using anonymous sources, including the May Lai Massacre, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the secret bombings of Cambodia. All of this reporting came with smears against his reputation and gaslighting that he was lying that was latter proved wrong, irrefutably. Meanwhile, later stories like his coverage of the Bin Laden story and Syria are more disputed and the historical fact is not so clear on his side.
With this substack story both the Russian and Chinese foreign ministries are relying on it to demand that the U.S. provide explanations. If a substack successfully triggers a diplomatic incident like that, and receives news coverage the way this story has, then it's worthy for inclusion for the reader. Omitting it is weird -- like an attempt to censor the reader from the core sources driving the valid encyclopedic entry. Spudst3r (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: I started drafting a similar question here, too. You were first :)
As a background, Hersh is a Pulitzer-winning American investigative journalist who first uncovered the My Lai massacre, the Abu Ghraib torture, and a few other scandals involving the US administration. He mostly published in The New York Times. Recently, he switched to self-publishing for reasons explained by him here[2] and so, his newest piece of investigative journalism appeared on a personal publishing platform.
In my view, this situation is governed by WP:SPS: 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. We are therefore free to consider this a reliable source within the scope of its author's expertise. Also, denials/criticism of Hersh's investigations coming from the US administration, even if reported by big titles, should in my view not influence our decision. So:
  • Yes to #1
  • Yes to #2 if the actual authorship is not in doubt
  • Yes to #3 for reasons explained above (WP:SPS).
(That said, I don't think it was wise to publish this investigation now, before the war is over.)
— kashmīrī TALK 21:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree that this situation is governed by SPS, however SPS seems to explicitly forbid the use of this source... It can only be used as long as "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;" which this one does, its only claims about events not directly related to the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
You're confusing the sections. The quote you refer to is under "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" and with an important note: they can be used without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field. This policy mostly allows us to source a company's financials to their investors report, or someone's place of birth to their personal blog. This does not refer to expert views published by experts themselves. — kashmīrī TALK 21:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
What part of "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion." doesn't fit Hersh's blog? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Please show us evidence that any of the three applies to that particular piece of journalism. — kashmīrī TALK 21:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Hersh has a poor reputation for checking the facts, as the WP:RS which covered this story noted (hence the "disgraced" in "disgraced investigative journalist"). By everyone's agreement there is no meaningful editorial oversight here, I don't believe that's disputed. According to WP:RS the entire article is based on a single anonymous source whose claims WP:RS have not been able to substantiate, thereby "relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
This is WP:EXPERTSPS v. non-expert WP:SPS. I'm not sure that Hersh is an expert within the meaning of EXPERTSPS. What is he an expert in, and what are his credentials? I wouldn't call Woodward and Bernstein experts, either, but maybe I'm wrong. Are investigative journalists experts? Levivich (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Woodward and Bernstein would be experts on journalistic practices, and Woodward also on the larger business side of that since he's been an editor at a paper-of-record for some time. Long careers at the top of their field do imho give them acknowledged expertise in that field. But neither would be experts in the subjects they covered during that career. --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@Kashmiri:, you wrote "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" but that's exactly what this is about. This is about whether or not use Hersh's blog post at Substack as source for his unverified, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated allegations within the wiki article. Notice: This topic's question states: "Hersh, Seymour, "How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline". Substack. Can this source [Substack] be cited with attribution at 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage?". And the answer is No. Substack is a social media blog so should not be used as a source per WP:SPS. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Substack is a publishing platform (i.e., an IT system), not a publisher (company). Just like Wikimedia Commons is an image distribution platform and not a publisher on its own. — kashmīrī TALK 00:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
He mostly published in The New York Times. He left the NYT in the late 70s or early 80s. His Abu Ghraib reporting was published in The New Yorker, not the NYT. The concern here is that his more recent work has come under increased criticism over its sourcing, with the New Yorker eventually declining to publish him anymore given concerns about it. Clearly, if he had published this in the NYT or the New Yorker, it could absolutely be included as a source. We need to assess, though, how to interpret the fact that he DIDN'T publish this in an RS, and what that means about the content. As such, I'm inclined to agree with the discussion above and say yes to 1 and 2, no to 3. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Since the White House responded and the response was noted in reliable sources, a sentence or two is acceptable. Linking to the (unreliable) source is not, since it lends too much credibility to it--as does the whole "investigative journalist" appellation. That was true decades ago. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
This isn't the question being asked here. — kashmīrī TALK 00:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes to 1, no to 2 and 3: A "source with direct knowledge of the operational planning" is insufficient attribution for a credible SPS, even from a reputable journalist. The anonymous source is quoted over a dozen times, but not once is their position, authority, or reason for requesting anonymity characterized. That doesn't meet current standards for the use of anonymous sources, which I'm sure Hersch understands. Δπ (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Sock strike Levivich (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • To clarify, RS Reuters calls his piece a "blog post." [3] Hersh posted his blog post in a social media blog named Substack. WP:SPS says "social media postings are largely not acceptable, as sources. Also Substack is WP:NOTRS, WP:QS whereby Substack does not fact check their blogger’s works and has no editorial oversight.
For #1, Yes under certain conditions. RS Reuters calls his piece a "blog post." Therefore, under the condition that it's under the correct Subheading "Blog Post on Social Media Blog" I'd be a yes & agree with Levivich and Dumuzid on #1; otherwise, I'd be a no.
For #2, No due to WP:UNDUE, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:NOTWEBHOST and possibly WP:LIVING & WP:NOTSCANDAL According to RS, the "subject matter" in Hersh's blog post includes unsubstantiated allegations against a living person and others [4]. And because RS report that Hersh's subject matter about the living person and others include details that media outlets have not verified and have not corroborated [5] [6], I am concerned we'd run into WP:LIVING issues.
For #3, No due to WP:NOTRS, WP:QS, WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FRINGE, WP:AGEMATTERS and possibly WP:LIVING & WP:NOTSCANDAL, and for reasons Levivich & Dumuzid stated. In fact, because of the reason I just stated, I feel the current paragraph on this is too lengthy & should reduced to just a few sentences at most, and possibly removed completelty.
Thanks for posting this Levivich! :) Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes to 1, 2 and 3: The way this has blown up: obviously, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: here is a balanced WP:SCMP article covering Hersch's article and the official U.S. response. Δπ (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    Doesn't seem so reliable to me: "The September explosions were blamed by Western countries on Russia", "Western fingers have continued to point at Russia" – these claims are not corroborated even by our Wikipedia article (because the statements are a fiction). "The decision was made in secret by US President Joe Biden to cut off Moscow’s ability to earn billions of dollars from natural gas sales to Europe" is another fiction – Hersh, just like Western governments, stresses energy dependence, not money. It's perhaps an unbiased article, but it's so poorly written that I wouldn't use it. — kashmīrī TALK 00:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Note that the story is an Agence France-Presse wire, are you saying that the AFP is publishing poorly written fiction? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Learn the difference between an existential and a universal quantifier. — kashmīrī TALK 09:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Learn how to identify a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
It's not fiction that the West largely blamed Russia; Poland and Ukraine all but officially blamed Russia, while US officials and other officials from EU countries were mostly just saying that it seemed very likely that Russia was to blame. Regarding these claims are not corroborated even by our Wikipedia article -- there's a reason AFP journalists are AFP journalists and not Wikipedia editors. Endwise (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@Endwise:, You're spot on! the AFP article is not fiction. See my comment below to Kashmiri where I give RS links showing wiki's RS concurred with the AFP article. Best wishes~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@Kashmiri:, wiki's RS do say 'the West blamed Russia' and that the 'West pointed fingers at Russia.' Here, "Russia shrugged off Western accusations of its complicity in mysterious explosions at the Nord Stream pipelines in Europe this week” [7], here "World leaders quickly blamed Russia for explosions along the Nord Stream undersea natural gas pipelines." [8], here "Western governments have stopped short of pointing the finger directly at Russia" [9], here "Western officials were quick to stress on Tuesday that the explosions appeared to have affected Russian-owned assets.[10]. Plenty more RSes say the same thing. And, those quotes from RS should be included in the wiki article & I've often wondered why they're not. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
We do not use headlines as sources.
US News beyond the headline: Though Western officials have so far withheld blaming Russia directly, some have hinted at complicity from Moscow – it says that the West did not blame Russia.
Elsewhere, no report of any named Western government official publicly blaming Russia. There were a few (very few) hints, insinuations, anonymous (!) "officials" sharing a "widespread belief" (in the WaPo piece; the anonymity of their sources is even more annoying than with Hersh's), but there was nothing official. Nothing especially coming from the "collective West" as the AFP piece suggests. The Guardian piece sums it up best: [T]he idea that Moscow would dare to step up by targeting western undersea pipelines and cables in the Baltic Sea and elsewhere remains hard to believe. — kashmīrī TALK 09:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
If you would like to challenge the reliability of the AFP all you have to do is open a new discussion under this one. You can't dispute that in this conversation as we have a clear consensus on their reliability, you would need to change that consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm questioning the factual accuracy of this particular news piece, and you want me to challenge the reliability of the entire AFP? Idiotic manipulation at its best. — kashmīrī TALK 12:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Then open a discussion for the factual accuracy of this particular AFP piece... See if other people agree with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Alaexis: The third question is whether or not the blog post published on a social media blog should be used as the source cited in the article about Nord Stream. So, since the content has been "covered by plenty of reputable sources" why not just use those reputable sources, as opposed to using the blog? Especially since blogs are not RS. Best regards ~
BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@BetsyRMadison Substack is NOT social media, please. Read this: Substack. — kashmīrī TALK 12:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: Yes, Substack IS a social media blog where anyone can write whatever they want with no editorial oversight and with no fact-checking control. Substack does not ensure the veracity of what any of their bloggers write and does not monitor its own content. That means Substack bloggers can post any false content, conspiracy theories, or propaganda they choose to post. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Kashmiri may be correct that “social media” may not be technically the correct term for Substack, but BettyRMadison is certainly correct in describing it as a blogging platform. At any rate there is no doubt that a Substack post falls within the SPS category in the same way as a Wordpress or Facebook post or a newsletter in the old-fashioned sense does. There is no editorial oversight of any kind. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I think this gets a bit theoretical. We would write the same thing ("Seymour Hersh wrote that US blew up the NS pipeline based on an anonymous source") whether we cite his substack or any of the RS which reported on it. Alaexis¿question? 20:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, it is not true that blogs are always not RS. WP:V says that "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." Alaexis¿question? 20:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that Hersh is a subject-matter expert in the Nord Stream sabotage, or Nord Stream, or sabotage, or the Russia/Ukraine war, or the Biden administration, or the CIA, or the Norwegian government, or anything else even remotely relevant. Arguably he might be an SME in My Lai or Abu Ghraib, but not in this. Levivich (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
One could argue that he *is* a subject matter expert in various covert operations of varying nefariousness. Alaexis¿question? 21:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
One could, at the risk of sounding quite foolish. For one thing, neither My Lai nor Abu Ghraib were covert operations. But let's assume they were. A journalist who breaks two stories--35 years apart--about two covert ops does not thereby become a subject matter expert in covert ops. (The same holds true if you substitute anything else for "covert ops"). A subject matter expert in covert ops (or any other subject) would have (a) a PhD, or (b) a decades-long career in covert ops (or in that subject), like a retired CIA operative. Hersh is no more an SME in covert ops than Woodward or Bernstein, or any other journalist who ever broke a govt scandal. Levivich (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Alaexis: That is not true either. Hersh is not in expert in "covert operations." Hersh had never planned, organized, facilitated in, or participated in a "covert operation" so he is not an expert on that. As someone wrote above: Woodward and Bernstein may be experts in journalistic practises, "But neither would be experts in the subjects they covered during that career." Same goes for Hersh, he may be an expert in journalism, but he's not expert in covert ops, Nord Stream, sabotage, underwater gas line explosions, or even gas lines. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
    Are you implying that no journalist can ever break a story revealing anything about covert ops, Nord Stream, sabotage, underwater gas line explosions, or even gas lines? Sounds like the death of any investigative reporting on wikipedia, no? Spudst3r (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
@Alaexis:, You are mistaken. Hersh is not a "subject matter expert" on Nord Stream, on underwater gas pipe explosions, or even on gas pipes for that matter. And, Hersh has done no previous work in "the relevant field" of Nord Stream, underwater gas pipe explosions, or gas pipes. Therefore, the portion you quoted does not apply to Hersh or Hersh's blog. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Strongly disagree that Hersh could be considered a SME on this topic. It’s a highly technical topic and he has zero qualifications to authorise his reporting on these technicalities. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
How in the world is evaluating the reliability of a source in a specific context outside of the scope of RSN? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes to all 3 as per Alaexis answer.--Mhorg (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Not 3. This is a self-published source without editorial oversight. Hersh is not a subject-matter export on this topic; being an investigative journalist does not make you an expert on anything that you are investigating. I think there was a point in his career when you could consider Hersh an expert on national-security matters; a review of his record (and how reliable sources write about him) over the last decade suggests that this is not the case now. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes to one, No to 2 and 3. There is just no way around the fact that our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy explicitly forbids using questionable sources in those ways. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes to one, iffy on 2, no on three. WP:ABOUTSELF seems to apply, and that seems to only clearly cover case 1. As others have noted, 3 is not needed as other sources that don't need special exceptions already exist. 2 is not the worst, since it is on his own article, but I have questions about WP:UNDUE; Wikipedia doesn't need to list every self-published blog post, and I'm not sure a case has been made that this one bears special mentioning in even his own article. --Jayron32 14:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. Of course the pipes were blown by Russian saboteurs, but this is hardly relevant. Can a primary self-published source for a conspiracy theory be linked if the theory was also covered in a number of valid secondary RS (as in this case)? I would say "yes", why not, simply for a convenience of a reader. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
    Hi @My very best wishes:, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that you feel Hersh's blog post should be used as a cited source "for convenience" to a reader? If that is what you're saying, then I disagree and here's why. 1) Hersh's blog is WP:NOTRS & WP:QS so should not be added. 2) Hersh posted his blog on Substack which is also NOTRS & QS. 3) I don't feel "convience" for the reader is a reason to violate WPNOTRS & WP:QS. 4) Wiki is WP:NOTWEBHOST so, if a reader is curious to see Hersh's blog, then they can 'google it.' Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I think it can be used by making an additional link in content about his theory that should be described using other secondary RS that are not self-published. I do not think it would harm to make such link. If we had only the self-published article and no secondary RS that discuss it, I would say "no". My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I suppose it could go as an external link, if convenience is all that's wanted. Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
    It does not fit any of the WP:ELYES criteria for the relevant articles. I think what mvbw is saying is that we shouldn’t use it as a source for facts but secondary coverage suggests it’s mildly noteworthy, and it doesn’t hurt to include the primary source for ease as well. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
    I think "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." would cover it. Selfstudier (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Selfstudier: I disagree and here's why - the "information (details) about the subject" of Hersh's blog are not corroborated and not verified by any "knowledgeable sources." In other words, other than just 3 RS writing, Hersh wrote a blog post, there is not a single RS that I'm aware of who has verified the "information about the subject" from any "knowledgeable sources." In fact, one of the RS used in the wiki piece on Hersh's blog debunks Hersh's allegations about the "subject." [11] For those reasons & reasons @Bobfrombrockley: stated, I don't that WP:ELYES applies here. Best Regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
    I agree, I meant that Hersh himself is a "knowledgeable source", that doesn't mean he is an expert, if he was, I'd say cite him directly with attribution. It's just an external link, no biggy. Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Sorta no to all 3 but with conditions. My views are somewhat similar to My very best wishes except that I have not analysed the secondary source situation enough to comment on whether there is reason to include. In other words, while I don't think the blog post can be used by itself, if secondary source coverage of the blog post means it is mentioned in some article, I don't see any harm in including a link to the blog post. I've fairly sure we do this all the time in fact, it's no significantly different from the way we may include a link to a tweet or Facebook post when these are covered in reliable secondary sources even though there are generally not RS by themselves. However to be clear, I have no view on whether secondary source coverage is enough to warrant mention in any article. Nil Einne (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
    To be clear, this means the link should only be for context, further reading and convenience. Since it's not an RS, it still cannot be used as the sole source for any detail which is not covered in secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes to all 3, given that his accusations have been met with denials and been covered in third party secondary sources. With that, including the initial accusation by a notable and noteworthy commentator is fine. nableezy - 17:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  • 1-Yes and source it to WP:RS not his blog 2,3-NO as per WP:SPS he is not an expert on nordstream or explosions --Shrike (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes to all 3: His reporting has prompted a response from the White House, making it extremely notable for the subject of question #3 especially. Mottezen (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The White House has also previously made statements to deny the existence of UFOs, so that means people who say UFOs exist are reliable sources? FOARP (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The question being asked is about reliability not notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
If this is right, we know it's noteworthy because of secondary sources, so why not cite the secondary sources instead? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Not 3 - Self published blog, per WP:SPS. Hersh also obviously not a reliable source nowadays generally, since he has previously authored highly unreliable pieces (e.g., his account for the Bin Laden raid, which is denied by all involved, and does not match with any of the evidence). FOARP (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes to 1 (provided it is under subheading clarifying that it is a blog post self-published). No to 2 and 3 per WP:SPS, WP:QS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:FRIND. -Location (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes to #1 under certain conditions. Absolutely not for #2 and #3, per comments by BetsyRMadison at 22:41, 10 February 2023 and Location at 16:28, 21 February 2023.
It's not a blog, but same difference as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It's a self-published source we can only use on the author's biography here. In no case can it ever be used to comment on a living person anywhere at Wikipedia. That's BLP 101. The only way we can document what it says is the exact quotes from it that are cited by secondary and third party RS. So reexamine how it's used and clean-up/delete improper usage.
Someone elsewhere wrote about him: "Journalism published on Substack is still journalism, not blogging." That's utter BS. It's no better. If an author, even a renowned, non-fringe journalist, wants Wikipedia to use them as a source, let them publish their views at an independent RS. Then we'd be happy to do so. Substack is a platform for independent authors. There is zero editorial oversight or fact-checking, so treat it like a blogging diary. Use what Hersh writes there only at his biography article here, and only about himself, not others, especially not his conspiracy theory BS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Compromise suggestion - What if we allow it to be cited/linked but only alongside an RS that supports the content, e.g. no using it on its own for anything? This gives the reader the convenience of access to the primary source without Wikipedia using it to support any content. "Piggyback required". Levivich (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong no to #3, but neutral on #1 and #2: Hersh is another one of those people who have basically "done an Assange"; someone who came to prominence for needling The Powers That Be, eventually got high on his own supply, and started going off the deep end. His past body of work is laudable, but when the decline in trustworthiness has been as notable as it is, it doesn't translate to current reliability, in the same way that Gemma O'Doherty's past journalism doesn't mean her far-right rabble-rousing as of late is reliable. At the very least, it's a major WP:FRINGE issue too. Sceptre (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

ianvisits.co.uk

There was a bit of a kerfuffle about this today, and seeing as the only mention on this noticeboard for this site is a vague mention by me here, it’s probably worth having a discussion.

Basically, ianvisists.co.uk is the blog of Ian Mansfield, a freelance journalist with decades of experience, who has written for The Guardian (also [12]) and whose blog has been name-checked on The Guardian ([13]) and BBC News. ([14]) So I believe it does meet the WP:SPS criteria of an "expert" as regards London transport and architecture; while it's not suitable as a main source, which should be reserved for books such as The Story of London's Underground (Day/Reed) or The Subterranean Railway (Wolmar), it might be okay to use sparingly as a source for recent facts. It really depends what is being cited and where, of course.

As a particularl exception though, one of the principal sources of his I like are a set of 3D axiometric maps of every London Underground tube station, which Ian appears to have obtained via a Freedom of Information request to the government, and doesn't appear to be officially published on tfl.gov.uk. Significantly here, although Ian hosts the content, he's very careful to say that the publisher is Transport for London, who hold the copyright, and appears to be hosting it as permission. So I'd say the maps, specifically, are as reliable as anything else published by TfL.

As another interesting data point, the site comes up via a Google News search, which is probably how many different users have decided to add it.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Previously I wrote;
"here he writes an article for the Guardian but here the WSJ describes him as an enthusiast and Engadget and the BBC both describe him as a blogger."
Looking again I find this Independent article that also describes him as a blogger, but the whole Independent article is based on Ian's article. There's also some books that reference the site from seemingly reliable publishers, Routledge, Simon & Schuster, Springer. Last time I said unreliable, but on second thought I don't think that's quite right. Reliable sources describe him as an enthusiast blogger, but treat him as something closer to an expert. So maybe not unreliable but not quite generally reliable, more considerations apply?.
Separately from the discussion on the sites reliability I see no reason to believe that the diagrams aren't from TfL. If they weren't the site would have been called out long ago on the matter by TfL and enthusiasts who work for TfL. Nothing suggests that the site is duplicitous, and as such the 3D maps are as reliable as anything else published by TfL. It's similar to the situation of findagrave, which isn't reliable but the documents it hosts can be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
As with any map care must be taken that it only supports basic information, not interpretations on what the map contains. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Reading through the discussion at User talk:10mmsocket#ianvisits.co.uk and SPS. The best option appears to be to replace with a etter source if one exists, and mark as {{better source needed}} where there isn't one. I can't see any reason why links can't be used in the external links section separately from referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
If anyone finds newer/better sources than I've found please ping me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Just a quick note that I started a discussion at User talk:10mmsocket yesterday regarding this site, as I'd missed the entry here - I won't lift the discussion over here directly, but it would be worth having a look at the discussions there, in particular points raised by HJ Mitchell, Bazza 7 and Mattdaviesfsic, as well as 10mmsocket (all pinged here as a courtesy), which give some useful viewpoints to consider. Mike1901 (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
At this point, I would consider Ianvisits a freelance journalist who runs their own website rather than a mere "blogger". I agree with @Ritchie333 regarding the expert Wikipedia:SPS point. Many of their posts - such as their recent Bank and Monument stations post - are covered in the mainstream/specialist press anyway. They're clearly invited by bodies such as Transport for London on press trips and other things, so that's worthy of consideration. An enthusiast blogger wouldn't get an invitation! Turini2 (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I was having a bad day and apologised to 10mmsocket, who thanked me for that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Mansfield is a subject-matter expert when it comes to London rail transport, in the same way Chris Marshall (of roads.org.uk) is a SME when it comes to British roads. I'd lean on the side of reliable. Sceptre (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hoffman and The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society

Following a deadlock at Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust#Hoffman, I'd like to ask here for opinions on reliability of this source: Hoffmann, Stephen P. (1986). "Review of Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles under German Occupation, 1939-1944". The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society. 84 (4): 442–444. ISSN 0023-0243. JSTOR 23380962. .

The author, Stephen P. Hoffmann, is a professor of political science at Taylor University (now retired). The Register is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Kentucky Historical Society. (journalsearches.com, "About" at muse.jhu.edu, journal hompeage).

The journal was used to source the existence of the review published in it of the book in question (The Forgotten Holocaust), per WP:BOOK's recommendation that the Reception should "quote the opinions of book reviewers. This section should contain a balanced reflection of the reviews. ... Because this section involves opinions, it should be heavy with quotes and citations."

However, several editors have argued that this review should be removed because "Barely known journal; barely known IR academic with no training in the topic area" (edit summary for removal) or "Is Register of the Kentucky Historical Society an RS? Probably, for Kentucky history. Not for WWII history. Not for the Holocaust.". (A related criticism is whether inclusion of this review is WP:DUE, although I completely fail to understand how an academic review of a book may be considered undue on a page about said book, unless it is unreliable?).

I'd therefore appreciate comments on whether 1) Stephen P. Hoffmann is RS 2) The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society is RS 3) whether they can be used as RS in the area of WP:APLRS and 4) whether this specific review should be kept or retained in the article it was recently removed from. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  • This is certainly in the grey area between WP:RS and WP:DUE; reviews are generally seen as pure opinion, and as such, aren't subject to the same kinds of assessment we do for statements of plain fact; what we're saying is in essence "Here is what this person says" and then paraphrasing the person's actual words; the place where they wrote the words directly is self-evidently reliable for what the words themselves say. That all being said, I think that there's a valid point to be made that reviews are generally more WP:DUE when coming from recognized subject matter experts, and published in recognized subject-matter sources. On the second of those, I don't think that the Kentucky Historical Society is, in general, a recognized source on the subject matter in question (World War II history or Holocaust history, etc.) nor are they a widely recognized general-history source (which may be even better). Per the Wikipedia article "It is an agency of the Kentucky state government that records and preserves important historical documents, buildings, and artifacts of Kentucky's past. (bold mine). In other words, neither is it an organization that focuses on WWII history NOR a well-known generalist history source. Thus, we're putting extra emphasis on Mr. Hoffman's personal reputation with regards to being a well-recognized subject matter expert on the topic at hand. I mean, I'm sure he was a fine political science teacher, but I can't find any indication his particular opinion on a book about the Holocaust bears special emphasis. Again, this is strictly not a WP:RS issue; we're sure Mr. Hoffman really wrote the review in question. It's simply a matter of "do we care what he has to say" rather than "is this source reliable for verifying that he said it." --Jayron32 15:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  • State historical societies are hit and miss, rarely would I advise using them for information not directly related to the history of their state. Pieces that are not directly related to the history of their state are generally only published in the historical society's journal after the author failed to get them published in neutral presses and had to turn to a friendly press with low standards. Also just a note that while I am not familiar with Hoffman's work Taylor University has an incredibly poor academic reputation... They do God's Work first and scholarship second and God help scholarship if it ever interferes with God's Work. So in the order asked the answers to the questions would be: probably not, no (at least for stuff not related to Kentucky), no, and no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I would definitely hesitate to use this review as a source of factual information about non-Kentucky history. However, I can't see anyone trying to use it that way. I only see it used as the source of the reviewer's opinion, and there is no reason to suppose that the reviewer's opinion is not reliably reported. So RS is not a valid reason for exclusion, which leaves only the question of whether this reviewer's opinion satisfies WEIGHT. Zerotalk 06:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Is the source reliable? Yes, as established in the above remarks. Moreover, the journal in question reviews a large variety of books, not all connected to Kentucky or even the United States. Should the source be used in the article? That is a question for the editing process and the article talk page. — Biruitorul Talk 10:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with Zero, the source is reliable and due because it is a review of a book in question. It makes common sense to summarize the author's views in an article on that book. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with Biruitorul, the source is reliable. I also agree with Zero. --evrik (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Based on the foregoing discussion, I see no basis for excluding the views of Stephen Hoffmann on Richard C. Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Nihil novi:: Why are Hoffman's views on the book relevant? What are Hoffman's qualifications or reputation within the field that make his views worth noting? We need no reason at all to exclude such views, we need reasons to include them. What is your rationale for including them? --Jayron32 15:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Like everyone else, I agree it's not an RS issue, it's a DUE issue, which is for the article talk page, not RSN (where I've already said why I don't think it's DUE). Levivich (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Three years ago I removed the source, and I stand by that edit.[15][16] François Robere (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Investopedia, 5

Previous threads: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Considering the low number of participants in the above discussions, I have little hope that this one will attract more attention. But can we at least alter the description of WP:RSP#Investopedia to something like this:

{{cquote|Investopedia is a website offering news and general info on finances. Previously owned by Forbes, it was bought by ValueClick in 2010, then by Dotdash in 2018. It is a tertiary source. Quality is reportedly inconsistent, and should be judged on a case-by-case basis. It is advised to cite Investopedia only for basic information.}} (struck through, see new suggestion below)

My arguments for the above are as follows:

  • Investopedia has a useful dictionary on basic financial terms, as well as people and events. For example: Real Estate, Supply and Demand, Net Operating Income, Karl Marx, Brexit. Note that all these articles are written by one person, reviewed by a second person, then fact-checked by a third person. All people involved appear to be experienced.
  • The website has a Financial Review Board with experienced people.
  • This entry at mediabiasfactcheck.com says that the site has a low bias. It cites this article on small-cap stocks, this one on the trade war between the US and China, and this article about Donald Trump as examples of fairly neutral reporting.
  • Quora threads: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. A few comments:
    • "While Investopedia is great at teaching different things about finance and investment, I would avoid using them as a scholarly source. Depending on your criteria, investopedia would not pass tests (like being peer reviewed)." (direct link)
    • "I was an editor there for several years so I can confirm (...) that they have a lot of very smart people writing and working for them. Everything written for them is reviewed and verified by several people with industry experience." (direct link)
    • "I find investopedia quite informative for those ones that want to start learning about the industry. They have so many definitions, great explanations, (...). However, they make mistakes and that is why someone trying to make any investment decision using their information should be really careful." (direct link)
    • "The majority of their content is actually pretty good, but some of it is laughably inaccurate. The problem is, to be an encyclopaedic source, it’s not good enough to be right 90% of the time. While all sources have some inaccuracies, I think Investopedia is inaccurate often enough that you really don’t know when they can be trusted and that makes them useless as a reference." (direct link)
  • Reddit threads: 1, 2, 3. A few comments:
    • "Their glossary is awesome and helped me learn (still a newb myself). Their news section should be taken with a grain of salt if you're using it as investing advice, just like any other financial news." (direct link)
    • "Investopedia is a mixed bag of helpful contributions, plagiarism, and outright wrong definitions. Quick lookup? Often fine. Useful source for papers or discussions? Definitely not. For instance: Investopedia: Contingent Convertibles. Financial Times Lexicon: Contingent Convertibles. Not that the latter is perfect (it does not even contain a definition) - but Investopedia is outright wrong." (direct link)
    • "From my experience, investopedia's pretty decent for learning the basics. You'll eventually probably want to move to books, textbooks, and some online lectures (plus some news articles on sites like FT) for learning more in-depth or advanced information." (direct link)
    • "It is good for very general definitions but doesn't go too into detail." (direct link)
  • There is an interesting comment at the fourth thread about Investopedia, which points out that it has been cited by scholars and news outlets.

- Manifestation (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I would advise not citing Investopedia at all, especially for basic information which can easily be found in a plethora of reliable sources (and if it can't then it isn't basic information, is it?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: Can you explain why exactly you think Investopedia shouldn't be cited?
Here's the reason why I opened this thread: a while ago, I wrote the article Private label, which Investopedia has a nice page about. The article is written by Marshall Hargrave, who is described on the site as "a stock analyst and writer with 10+ years of experience covering stocks and markets, as well as analyzing and valuing companies". It was reviewed by Robert C. Kelly, who is described as a "managing director of XTS Energy LLC, and has more than three decades of experience as a business executive". It looked good to me.
Yesterday, someone came along and removed all instances of Investopedia from Private label. While writing the article, I of course read many sources. The Investopedia pages were very helpful, and had specific pieces of info that I could not find anywhere else. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I would say that its good advertising for Marshall Hargrave and Robert C. Kelly. What exactly is their relationship with Investopedia? Kelly appears to be using their presence on Investopedia to plug a blue hydrogen project they are associated with. Also note that the company Hargrave works for, Bridgewater Investments LLC, is an unknown company and should not be confused with the similarly named Bridgewater Associates. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: No offense, but that's a cynical argument. According to that logic, everyone who writes an article under their own name is self-promoting and therefore unreliable. - Manifestation (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not being cynical, Kelly is not being subtle about plugging their nascent blue hydrogen project. He doesn't appear to have any editorial qualifications, literally the only reason I can see for his involvement is self promotion. How else do you explain it? These aren't academics or recognized experts in their field, so why are they writing it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussed on WikiProject Finance and Investment here. It is certainly a convenient source, but some of the articles have serious problems, which would seem to militate against reliability. At a minimum, higher quality sources should be preferred. John M Baker (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    @John M Baker: Hey thanks! I didn't think of looking at WP:FINANCE. I've left a notification there. - Manifestation (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Reliable, however suffers from the same problems as other WP:TERTIARY sources and should be used with limitations accordingly. PaulT2022 (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
    To elaborate, I encountered errors similar to the ones that are being discussed in this thread in major textbooks on investment, risk management etc. To complicate the situation, some topics in this field are POV-based: defining short interest indicator in terms of whether it is bearish or bullish instantly comes to mind - there are three different "right" answers between FINRA exams, Investopedia and various papers one may find in Google Scholar.
    I don't think Investopedia problems are sufficient to declare a single source unreliable, as they seem to plague the entire topic area. When Investopedia (or any other source) conflicts with others, regular procedures for dealing with POV or WP:EXCEPTIONAL should be followed. This applies to all sources per WP:V and WP:NPOV. A blanket statement in WP:RSP#Investopedia would be concerning, as it would result in an unspoken implication that "reliable" sources on investment exist that can be used to state something in this topic area without cross-checking other sources.
    I can imagine that there are cases when Investopedia is hard to replace with alternative sources because they may not provide succinct high-level coverage of the subject. I think most of its articles are useful to determine weight of different sections at the very least.
    Secondary sources should be preferred to Investopedia or any other tertiary source for citations. PaulT2022 (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with the general sense in prior Wiki discussions, on reddit, on quora, etc., that it's not reliable enough to really be reliable. Mostly OK but sometimes way wrong, and its authors aren't really experts. Levivich (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Generally unreliable - I consider it as having a poor reputation for fact checking. Additionally, I feel that the idea you can't find information elsewhere but can find it on Investopedia and thus must be used a very weak argument. Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request exists. Hundreds of textbooks on finance and investing exist. Just because it's a convenient Google result does not mean we should use it. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok people, how about we put this at WP:RSP#Investopedia: {{cquote|Investopedia is a tertiary source on financial content, owned by Dotdash. Its quality is reportedly inconsistent, and should be judged on a case-by-case basis. It is advised to cite Investopedia only on aspects for which no other source can be found.}} (ok... see my third attempt below.)

According to SimilarWeb.com, Investopedia has over 50 million views per month. Google often puts it in its results when searching for financial terms, so a lot of people encounter it when researching financial subjects, myself included. A lot of users will try to cite Investopedia in the future, so we better put some sound advice at WP:RSP#Investopedia. - Manifestation (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean that Investopedia should never be cited when they're the only source that can be found? See WP:EXTRAORDINARY Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Right; if they're the only ones on earth to publish something, it's probably wrong.
What's worse: in practice, Investopedia is overwhelmingly used by people who can't/(won't?) access books or academic papers, to support statements that have hundreds or thousands of proper, harder-to-access reliable sources. It's only very rarely being used for unique perspectives or statements that can't be sourced elsewhere. So that RSP entry would basically amount to a deprecation. Not the intended outcome, I assume. DFlhb (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC); edited for clarity 07:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • My experience is that Investopedia isn't reliable. It's accurate most of the time – but I've seen errors often enough that I wouldn't trust it for information that I can't independently verify. For example, their page about jelly rolls gives a completely incorrect example (a combination of long and short straddles instead of a synthetic long position and synthetic short position).
That said, I've sometimes found that Investopedia is the only source available for accurate information aimed at retail traders. I cited it in Jelly roll (options) a couple years ago – but if I were working on the article now, I don't think I would. At the time I was less familiar with Investopedia as a source, and I know from pre-existing knowledge in this area that the claim I cited is true, but now I don't know if I would trust Investopedia for the information if I didn't have that existing knowledge. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I would say that "aspects for which no other source can be found" are not notable enough for Wikipedia. I would suggest not to rely on Investopedia for them. And I agree with others suggesting that if other sources are available then we should not use Investopedia. And that leaves no room for Investopedia at all. Retimuko (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Concur with Mx. Granger. I use Investopedia a lot. Some entries are sterling, some entries are barely-edited blogging, and some entries read like crypto spam. I'd put it somewhere between yellow-rated and GU. It's like using a wiki that's pretty good with some terrible bits. I really wouldn't consider it Generally Reliable, even as it's frequently excellent, because it's frequently not at all excellent - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I would say that "aspects for which no other source can be found" are not notable enough for Wikipedia.
That's a good point, Retimuko, but...
I can imagine that there are cases when Investopedia is hard to replace with alternative sources because they may not provide succinct high-level coverage of the subject.
Exactly, PaulT2022. Here's an example: when I wrote the article Private label, I put in a bit about private-label credit cards (PLCCs), i.e. store cards. I wanted to describe the difference between PLCCs and co-branded credit cards. One difference is: the former does not feature the logo of the payment network (Visa/MasterCard), the latter does. However, PLCCs do use that network for transactions. That statement is (currently) in the article, and was sourced from this Investopedia page: "They are also similar to other credit cards in that while private label credit cards do not carry a payment network's logo, they are still backed by a payment processor and issuing bank". This was a detail I could *only* find on Investopedia. - Manifestation (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
If you've only ever found that information on Investopedia how do you know its true? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I assumed that private-label credit cards use a payment network. What else would they use? I just needed a ref to confirm it, and Investopedia came in handy. I wish I could replace it, but with what? - Manifestation (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
So you did original research and then went in search of a source? Thats backwards, we work from sources to create content not from content to sources. We don't edit through Manifestation (popular psychology). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

How about this at WP:RSP#Investopedia:

I would also propose keeping the No consensus icon, which according to the legend means: "marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question." Manifestation (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

contest -> content, and I'd suggest changing to "reportedly range from high to low quality", since I've seen other entries where editors treat "inconsistent quality" or similar wording as if it were a quasi-deprecation. Other than that, seems like a good proposal. DFlhb (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC); edited, I think the case for GUNREL has been well-argued 14:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I would point out that we do actually appear to be approaching a generally unreliable consensus in this discussion here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it does appear that way. To be considered unreliable the quality does not have to be consistently bad. It just has to be inconsistent. And it is not clear how would we judge on a case-by-case basis. So I would suggest to say just that: there is consensus not to use it. Retimuko (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Agree with both of you; the "generally unreliable" side has presented solid arguments, and I'd support a GUNREL assessment. DFlhb (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's about time to wrap this up. I must say I'm disappointed. This is not the outcome I hoped for. But I have to face facts, it is the outcome I got, so here's what I propose as the entry at WP:RSP#Investopedia:

Combined with a Generally unreliable label of "Generally unreliable". - Manifestation (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 Implemented: diff. - Manifestation (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Iranian government and IRGC-linked sources

Quite a few Iranian government sources seem to be getting a free pass as reliable sources at present, with the exception of WP:PRESSTV.

A few discussions have been launched on the subject, and a list of the various Iranian government news channels can be found here, and I would particularly like to draw attention to several news sources with close ties to the IRGC that are possibly flying under the radar at present.

The most spurious among them are the Fars News Agency, which is run by the IRGC, and once posted a story about a time machine and also claimed the US was influenced by extraterrestrials. There's one past discussion here.

The Tasnim News Agency also has links to the IRGC and called Covid-19 an American and Jewish plot at world domination hatched by Henry Kissinger. There's one past discussion here .

Then there is Mashregh News, which has also been described as close to Iranian intelligence, appears to repeat government writ verbatim and has been implicated in several content controversies as well - though of the three it's probably least concern.

Given the general freedom of the press issues, the additional issues with news outlets with close ties to a notorious IRGC, and the specific content issues noted above, I think it would be worthwhile getting some renewed community input and firmer consensus on whether these sources should be being used, and if yes, in what context, with attribution or not, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think this discussion is necessary at this moment? Does the use of these sources which indeed can be problematic cause problems? If yes, in which areas? Alaexis¿question? 21:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Fars is in about 500 articles,[17] such as Islamic State, Al Jazeera, Hugo Chavez and COVID-19 vaccine.
Tasnim in well over 1,000,[18] which look like fewer are contentious. Examples include COVID-19 pandemic in Iran, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran.
Meshregh is in over 400.[19] Examples: Iran–Iraq War, COVIran Barekat, and various Syrian war articles such as Syrian Army.
If the sources are indeed problematic, we might want to review these articles. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The instructions at the top of this page say that any question should include the content being supported by the challenged source. Since it's not provided, I think that there can be no definite answer. Alaexis¿question? 15:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I think there are much broader questions to be asked here. First, Iran is considered one of the 10 worst countries in the world (RSF) for press freedom. From this starting point, we are then drilling down to sources that are not just politically affiliated, as in WP:BIASED, but affiliated very specifically with the IRGC, whose mandate it "to ensure the integrity of the Islamic Republic" and Iranian intelligence platforms - affiliations that do no exactly scream editorial independence. The stated aims of many of these news platforms are no less shaded with a deep-set ideological streak. E.g. the mission statement of the Tasnim News Agency is to "[defend] the Islamic Republic against negative media propaganda campaigns and providing our readers with realities on the ground about Iran and Islam." ... and one might well ask: And whose realities would those be? This is a far cry from a news outlet mission statement that might for instance read: "Our mission is to provide the best in independent news and reporting to our readers..." By their own words, these media organizations do not really even claim to be independent outlets, but state ideological purposes. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes @Iskandar323, I think a more deep analysis is required. We need to analyze the articles too where these sources have been used.
See this how Iranian media is influenced by its intelligence agencies. A list of media outlets is highlighted here. SpunkyGeek (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Is Racketnews a reliable source for this statement about Clint Watts?

The statement is "These allegations were later shown to be false after Twitter released information showing that Watts cited legitimate, right-leaning accounts. [1][2]" Note that the first ref cites nothing. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ .“Falsely accuses a bunch of legitimate right-leaning accounts of being Russian bots.”
  2. ^ https://www.racket.news/p/move-over-jayson-blair-meet-hamilton

Doug Weller talk 10:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Racketnews just seems to be Matt Taibbi's personal substack: using it about and in the article on Clint Watts seems pretty clearly against WP:BLPSPS. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
At best this appears to be a group blog without any signs of editorial control. Generally unreliable and unusable in BLPs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

LA Times in Chloe Cole article in regards to the Kaiser lawsuit

There is currently a discussion at Chloe Cole#LA Times lawsuit opinion on whether the LA Times is an acceptable source for the following paragraph:

Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik described the lawsuit as "part of a concerted right-wing attack on LGBTQ rights, in which the health of transgender youth is exploited as a pretext for bans on gender-affirming care" and stated it "incorporates what seem to be misleading or inaccurate descriptions of developments in the gender dysphoria treatment field."[1] TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  • What other source would be more acceptable to verify that Hiltzik made those statements? I can't think of a more reliable source than the source that actually published the statements he made. --Jayron32 15:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    No one doubts that the author made the statements. The question is should the author's opinion of how this lawsuit fits into the larger question of trans-gender care/right etc and if that opinion is DUE in an article about Cole the person. I'm concerned as the author's opinion implies an intent on the part of Cole that isn't substantiated. The implication is that Cole's tort is not about harm to her but instead was setup for larger political purposes. It's the difference between saying, "this lawsuit is being used to further agenda X" vs "this lawsuit was filed by the plaintiff to further agenda X". The latter implies deception or a lack of harm to the plaintiff. Springee (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Update, taken to WP:NPOVN#LA Times in Chloe Cole article in regards to the Kaiser lawsuit TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree that WP:NPOV is a better forum for the question of whether the statement should or should not be used in the Cole BLP, since it is clear that the LA Times is a reliable source that the author actually wrote the article/editorial including the statement at issue. Banks Irk (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The dispute isn't about whether LATimes is an RS, it's about whether this particular column in the LATimes is WP:DUE for inclusion. Not an RSN issue. Levivich (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that WP:DUE is a concern. Chloe_Cole#Reception already seems to contain a few opinions abut Cole and the lawsuit. Michael Hiltzik may be notable enough to have his opinion about this suit noted there, but it does appear to be a left-of-center view that might require a right-of-center view for balance. This discussion probably should go to WP:NPOVN. -Location (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

That is *not* how balance works on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
To be clear on what I mean: If balance means providing a proportional representation of views that are found in reliable sources, then including material that reflects only one side of this debate likely violates WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:PROPORTION, etc. -Location (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hiltzik, Michael (2023-03-02). "Column: A transgender patient's lawsuit against Kaiser is a front for the conservative war on LGBTQ rights". LA Times. Retrieved 2023-03-03.

Archive

1. Source. [20] and [21]


2.Article. Marikamba Temple, Sagara

3.Content. Self published and orginal research. The content is no longer available in current version of Municipal Website. I have question regarding its archive use in wiki article , the entire article is written on the basis of this archive, no other independent reliable sources are available, is this archive is reliable or not?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimmoun (talk • contribs) 04:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't appear the source is self published, as the council and the temple are separate organisations. Also the restriction against original research doesn't apply to sources, but rather editors (see WP:OR). Having said all that, a local council website is a poor source for 16th history. It would still be reliable for the temples existence and uncontroversial details. If you have better, more up to date sources I suggest rewriting the effected parts of the article or raising you concerns on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Planespotters.net

Shortcut

Hi there everyone! I'd like to draw your attention to www.planespotters.net, which is widely used across airline articles. I am concerned about the reliability of this particular source as their disclaimer at www.planespotters.net/about lists unofficial sites, including blogs. Can you please drop some lines regarding this in order to settle the matter once and for all? Thank you in advance. Jetstreamer Talk 23:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it tends to be more up to date than airfleets. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
But there's usually a lag of some days between a delivery appearing in the news and showing up on the website. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
The site seems to be the work of one individual, so would fall under WP:SPS. I can find several book citing the site from seemingly reputable publishers (University of Belgrade Press, Sanata Dharma University Press, Springer), as well as other publisher either unknown to me or works that are self published. Does anyone else have any reputable source treating the site as reliable? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Jetstreamer
I would agree with @ActivelyDisinterested in that it appears it is currently run by a single individual so WP:SPS would apply. The website also doesn't make it clear whether a source was used from their official or unofficial list, either. In my opinion, even if there are reputable publishers stating that it's reliable...until we know which sources were used (official or unofficial) for the information on their page, we can't really be sure.
Starlights99 (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
There's a contact form if you want to ask for more information. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
It is not self-published. The site publishes photos on behalf of many people. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
As it is an image hosting site, the photos would fall under user-generated. The site likely edits the registrations into data given official sources. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I would also agree that it's an SPS and that we are relying on whether they treated as reliable by published RS's. Note that at least one of the "unofficial sites" that it lists in its disclaimer (i.e. Air-Britain is very much a reliable source. I think that official/unofficial here is the difference between airline/manuafacturer (what here we would call primary sources) and other sources - a mix of reliable and SPS/enthuiast sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Sometimes I see differences between this site and airfleets where it's not possible to choose one as "better". Trigenibinion (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I am reading all the comments left here. IMO, it cannot be considered reliable, but let's just wait for more input. Thank you all.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The aggregates are backed by registration numbers. Maybe the dry leases cannot be verified without resorting to community photos. Besides that, I would say it is a question of freshness and completeness more than reliability. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The Future column seems to be indicating immediately upcoming deliveries. I would not use it. For retired aircraft, I would compare with airfleets. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I would also not pay any attention to parking status. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
So yeah basically it's not reliable and shouldn't be used as a source. Canterbury Tail talk 18:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I would use it for the total number of in service and maybe retired aircraft. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
As mentioned in airliners.net, another verification source would be flightradar24. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The inventories of most airlines should be available by WP:RS printed directories - these do generally come out once per year, so may be less up to date than online sources, and of course someone will have to pay for them, while things like planespotters are free and easy to access.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
It is OK to update some articles once a year, but maybe not others. Besides who will pay for it, the other question is if one person would have to fill out everything. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Are these directories solely based on official sources or is it yet another case where unofficial sources are also being used? Trigenibinion (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
You have long shown to have a problem with planespotters but have not provided any examples of unreliability. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
You've got it wrong, as the person arguing for it to be reliable you need to prove reliability not the other way around. Canterbury Tail talk 14:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Many unreliable traditional sources are still accepted by Wikipedia. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Looking at your edits I'm beginning to believe you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Additionally please read WP:BLUDGEON. Canterbury Tail talk 14:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
No, I now understand better how English Wikipedia works, so I think it would be time to stop contributing again. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
That's easy. Here is a listing for Adler Aviation except it's really for Adlair Aviation. It list just a historical Twin Otter (GFYN) that is now owned by Buffalo. However, Adlair has two registered aircraft at Transport Canada. The Lear is parked (semi-permanently in back of the hangar) and the King Air is out of town right now. Planespotters isn't trustworthy. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
They mashed up 2 different companies. It is visible. Trigenibinion (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • As a Self-published source, this does not have the reputation of a well-known publisher adding to its credibility, and there is no evidence that the information contained at the site is vetted or checked or placed under any layers of editorial control besides the one person who runs the site. Self-published sources are generally only considered sufficiently reliable if and only if other reliable sources demonstrate that the person in question is widely regarded as a subject matter expert, and if other reliable sources frequently cite the source in question as itself reliable. --Jayron32 15:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
    I concur. I think it might be possible to demonstrate planespotter is WP:EXPERTSPS, but it hasn't been demonstrated yet. The sources AD posted above are a start, but I'd want to see a lot more, before we could treat it like baseball-reference.com or National Football Teams [fi; pl] (listed on WP:WPFLINKS). Levivich (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
    I didn't comment on reliability in my comment as I don't believe what I found is enough. As no-one else seems to have found anything better, I don't believe it passes the requirements of WP:SPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Not reliable: I see nothing to indicate it meets any of our standards of reliability. As a result it should be considered unreliable and all references to it should be either removed or repointed to reliable sources. If reliable sources for the material do not exist, then as with everything else, the info should be removed. Canterbury Tail talk 14:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion:[1]
  • I've long maintained that it's not reliable. I gave one example above and I just found another. According to Planespotters the ICAO designator for Summit Air is SMM but according to Nav Canada's ICAO Designators for Canadian Aircraft Operating Agencies, Aeronautical Authorities and Services it's SUT. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    Wikipedia and some other websites (including the FAA) show Summit Air for SMM (US AOC?). Trigenibinion (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    Again can you please stop bludgeoning the conversation. Out of the now 66 comments in this thread, you've made 32 of them. That's almost 50% of all comments. Please allow the comments and thread to reach it's conclusion and stop responding to everything. Canterbury Tail talk 13:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Not Reliable It's clearly crowdsourced and to the extent "edited" is done so by a SPS. It consists almost entirely of photos contributed by unverified persons with no way to verify the authenticity of the appended information. So, we have a photo of an Acme 9000XYZ airplane in the livery of the VeryBestAirline purportedly at the Gotham City Airport, with a caption - first one ever delivered! How do we know any of that is accurate, even assuming the pic wasn't photoshopped? This isn't even a close question...and the argument that "there aren't any better sources" is a fundamental failure to grasp what is meant by "reliable sources". Banks Irk (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Additional considerations apply, use with care; to marginally reliable for limited factoids. Editor's Choice says "A selection of our favorite photos as chosen and voted by our dedicated team here at Planespotters.net" Indicates they have a review team. However, I would hesitate to rely solely on it for anything other than visual info' seen in independent photos from more than one user. Check of semi-random article from insource search was not great:Air_India#cite_ref-112 I like that planespotters has "send in corrections" links, and sometimes links to "more info" at independent websites[22]; however, this time the linked info was blank, for me. The search to find more than one photo of a plane type is good - example[23], but then you're getting into WP:OR territory. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. It's a self-published source with obvious errors and an unclear editorial structure. It's not widely cited by other reliable sources, which suggests it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If planespotters.net cites a reliable source for its content, we can use that reliable source instead. There's simply no need to use a source like this. Woodroar (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1452037

Walter Ong on non-human biology

The article Male expendability cites cultural historian and religious scholar Walter Ong's book Fighting for Life. In two places. This request is for the passage where he talks about non-human animals (ungulates in some versions, mantises and dung beetles in the current one) [24]. No party disputes that Ong and his book are reliable sources in general, but there is disagreement about whether he is reliable for this specific content.

Background: Male expendability is the idea that because it takes more energy for females/women to produce than for males/men to reproduce, society considers human men expendable. Anthropoligsts have used this idea in their studies since the 1970s. Manosphere critics later adopted it as well.

My own take: Ong's not a biologist, mammologist, entomologist, etc. So he should be treated as an amateur when it comes to biology. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this whole discussion is way oversized given that, even if Ong was the most reliable source in the world, what he wrote doesn't actually verify the information cited to it. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, here's a link to the discussion. M here has helpfully quoted the passage from FFL that's used as a source for the article's statement about dung beetles: [25] Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be chasing a foul ball in the form of dung beetles. The essence of the topic is that human males are historically considered expendable defenders of human social groups because of the generally greater physical strength in males, and the way that humans are able to reproduce, which was how Walter Ong was first brought in as a source by TiggyTheTerrible in January 2022, supporting commentary about humans but also including farm animals, wild animals, and dung beetles. The stuff about animals is peripheral. The stuff about humans is of core importance. Ong is certainly qualified to comment on human behavior. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
The question posed here is whether Ong is a reliable source for said supporting commentary "including farm animals, wild animals, and dung beetles." Whether he's reliable for the content about humans is a separate issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Your question conceals the larger story. You removed human AND non-human information cited to Ong which makes it look like you are trying to remove Ong entirely, using the lever of non-human. Ong should not be removed entirely. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I suggest reinstating the human related information and discuss the animal related examples further. The problem with the animal examples is that it is actually another problem entirely. For inter-animal interaction its obviously not cultural devaluation from society, but would be something like an emergent systematic effect inherent in the evolutionary biology of all sexual dimorph lifeforms, similar to Bateman's principle. AndersThorseth (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Plugged In

The source in question is in use at the article Made You Look (Meghan Trainor song), for the following statements:

  • "[The song] fuses 1950s music with contemporary styles"
  • "[In the lyrics, the singer] insists she looks better donning just her hoodie and 'hotter when [her] morning hair's a mess'".
  • "Trainor declares that onlookers would [...] become obsessed with her once they 'get a taste'; she also uses the slang term '14-karat cake' to refer to her backside."
  • "Marsella Evans of Plugged In criticized the song's obsession with physical beauty and the idea of seeking attention by taking off one's clothes, also accusing parts of it of promoting materialism; she was positive about the lyrics that encourage valuing natural beauty."

Their about us page states they have an editorial team but also admits a religious bias. Would they still be considered a reliable source for the song's composition and lyrics? What about for critical commentary cited in the fourth point? Regards.--NØ 10:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  • It's reliable for the reviewer's opinion, with attribution, as is done in the article on the 4th quote. I'd be disinclined to use it for anything else. Whether the author's opinion - which is that the lyrics are unchristian from a fundamentalist viewpoint - is something that should be included in the article is a WP:Due issue that can be discussed on the article talk page. But it is a Reliable Source that she holds that opinion. Banks Irk (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Charisma (magazine) at Nicole C. Mullen

Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs) came through this article today and cut half the article's content, which included a source to an interview with the Christian magazine Charisma done in 2016 detailing the musical career of the BLP subject as seen here in archived form. After a back and forth about why they'd remove a good source, they then stated they did so because of the magazine's sudden shift, as with seemingly everything evangelical after a certain November 2016 political victory, and even more with a certain disease named after 2019, to attack articles against said disease mandates and that they think certain government officials should be smited or something for being in support for them or for their sexual orientation, along with anti-Muslim rhetoric. Trust me, I do 100% agree that stuff definitely doesn't meet RS.

However, this article was written in October 2016 and is merely an artist profile which doesn't attack anybody or opposing religions, I feel like it would be reliable for at least the purpose of sourcing the BLP's career. I will definitely yield if analysis determines that we just won't source to this magazine, but for the interest area of a CCM singer and the tone of the piece, that the source is fine, even if the magazine it's in has become something else in intervening years, a la current-day Newsweek. I'm also going to ping in @Drmies: as they looked at the article and removed out of date dead vague links (of the 'here's the Billboard chart link' type with no deeper linking) after HEB came through (which I have no issue with). Nate • (chatter) 22:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know whether Charisma was reliable in 2016. As you say it is not currently a RS. If a source can be found which says that there was a radical break with existing standards and practices at some point then it would very well be reasonable to break their reliability up into two time periods. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Not well versed in the subject and an uninvolved opinion, so I just read up on it slightly on the talk pages, ere's the archived source in question[26], I'd say it appears to be an interview with the person so probably fine to use for very basic biographical details, but would not go towards notability and shouldn't be used for anything controversial. Seems quite WP:ROUTINE and fluffy. Andre🚐 22:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I agreed with this revert by HEB, but not because of the Charisma bit--I had a problem with the other unverified information. I really don't have much of an opinion on the question at hand, except to say that I probably agree with Andrevan. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

proza.ru

Is https://proza.ru/ a reliable source? Seems like a lot of the stuff posted there is russian propaganda Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Top of the page, via Google translate: Proza.ru is a Russian literary portal that provides authors with the opportunity to freely publish their works. Which wouldn't meet WP:RS regardless of whether it was 'propaganda' or not, unless the authors had demonstrable subject-matter expertise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I concur, you beat me to it, I was about to say the same. It's user-submitted content. Andre🚐 23:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Need to deprecate an apparent scholarly source that cites and directly copies from wikipedia

WITHDRAWN
Opener concedes that source is a WP:RS by the definition recognized by Wikipedians. - car chasm (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

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

We appear to have had a citogenesis incident where a WP:FRINGE theory promoting the idea that Buddhism was brought to Ancient Greece by missionaries from Ashoka, which as far as I can tell is not supported by any WP:RS. The root appears to have been WP:OR and blatant source falsification done on the page for Hegesias of Cyrene, but this propagated via the published book Historical Dictionary of Ancient Greek Philosophy, which admits to using wikipedia as a resource:

For most (not all) topics in ancient philosophy, there is little motivation for people to do wholesale flim-flam on a Wikipedia page, but there is always a possibility that you are reading an article edited most recently by a high school student with a sense of humor. One article I checked, on a minor Hellenistic philosopher, ended with the sentence, “And in addition, he loved bacon double cheeseburgers.” Two days later, the sentence was gone; the Wikipedia managers can be pretty efficient. Given the fluid nature of the Wikipedia articles, we have decided not to include them in the bibliography; at the same time, recognize that Wikipedia might be the most convenient place to find out significantly more on a topic discussed in this dictionary, and could have information not otherwise readily available.

Ergo, not only did this supposed "expert" decide to copy information from us (often verbatim!), but he decided not to even cite where he did! This source is therefore completely unusable, and it's quite the puzzle how it managed to be published in the first place. Is there somewhere we can document, or ideally programmatically prevent this source from being used in the future? I'm concerned that more cases like this will happen in the future as this source looks on the surface like it might be reliable even though it very much isn't. - car chasm (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I have also already removed the source wherever I could find it, and either removed the offending cited material if it dealt specifically with the one fringe theory I found it promoting, or removed the citation altogether. I'm mostly concerned about any of this being added back. - car chasm (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Nowhere in there does it say they based their information on (or copied from) Wikipedia. What the author says is that Wikipedia is a pretty damned good source of information if you're looking for a quick overview of a topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I should clarify - that quoted excerpt is taken from their bibliography. - car chasm (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Bibliography: a list of works (such as books and articles) written on a particular subject or by a particular author.
Did we write articles on Ancient Greek philosophy? Yes. Therefore we could be included in a bibliography of the subject. That doesn't mean we were used as a source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
The full quote being

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) is, we may say, controversial as a scholarly resource. For topics in ancient Greek philosophy many or most of the articles are ultimately based on the 11th ed. of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1911, and then made available to anyone who wishes to edit them, essentially. The result is that it is extremely likely that there will be some information on almost any ancient philosopher, and on many philosophical topics that can be formulated clearly enough to be searched. Sometimes Wikipedia articles are every bit as good as the competing articles on Stanford or IEB, but given the fluidity of the Wiki process, there is always a question about reliability. For most (not all) topics in ancient philosophy, there is little motivation for people to do wholesale flim-flam on a Wikipedia page, but there is always a possibility that you are reading an article edited most recently by a high school student with a sense of humor. One article I checked recently, on a minor Hellenistic philosopher, ended with the sentence: “And in addition, he loved bacon double cheeseburgers.” Two days later, the sentence was gone; the Wikipedia managers can be pretty efficient. Given the fluid nature of the Wikipedia articles, we have decided not to include them in the bibliography; at the same time, recognize that Wikipedia might be the most convenient place to find out significantly more on a topic discussed in this dictionary, and could have information not otherwise readily available.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
That seems fairly damning to me, but I'm not interested in trying to reinterpret what they said in a way where if you ignore the usual meanings of words you can act like they didn't admit to citing wikipedia by listing it in their bibliography, because I can prove otherwise. They did use wikipedia as a source. they said that they "decided not to include them in the biography" and yet they do in fact copy us. I found this source when trying to find reliable sources to add to our ancient philosophy articles. You can spot check as many articles as you would like if you don't believe me.
Here is an example:
our page prior to the book's publication
Here's them:

ANTIPATER OF CYRENE. Ἀντίπατρος. (4th BCE.) Student of Aristippus in the Cyrenaic school. According to Cicero (Tusculan Disputations v.38) he was blind, and when some women bewailed the fact, he responded, “Do you think the night can furnish no pleasure?

Almost all of their entries are just paraphrases of what the wikipedia article said in 2006-2007. - car chasm (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
That's...literally not the same as the article link you gave whatsoever. Just because it says "According to Cicero (Tusculan Disputations v.38) he was blind" doesn't mean that was taken from Wikipedia. SilverserenC 01:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
You know what a paraphrase is, right? These are the exact same sentence, just paraphrased.
I'm not really sure what problem y'all are having here is. A bibliography is a place where you list the sources you used in a published book. Their book doesn't use inline citations, and none of their other sources cover the same material. - car chasm (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
"A bibliography is a place where you list the sources you used in a published book." No it's not. A bibliography is a curated list of works on a subject that one may consult to further understanding in various topics. This quote is in the introduction of their bibliography, which explain their selection criteria and why they include/omit certain works, and their appraisal of the quality of those works. It is not a list of sources used. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, I don't think so, but if that were true, then we should deprecate this source anyway, because in that case it does not cite its sources at all! - car chasm (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
1) We don't require sources to cite their sources. 2) It does cite its source, it cites Cicero's Tusculan Disputations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok, this is going nowhere. Frankly, if you think Cicero is a reliable source I doubt further discussion will be productive. - car chasm (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I have no idea who Cicero is, but I'm pretty sure we can rely on Cicero to describe what Cicero reported of people. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • This seems like a precipitous overreaction. I see no indication that the cited passage in the reference is based on the earlier Wikipedia article; it is certainly not copied verbatim and is not even a close paraphrase. The possible Indian connection to Hegesias was added by this edit [[27]], which cited a scholarly source other than the one you object to. Lafont appears to be widely published, though I do not have access to the reference, and have only restaurant French. The editor who added the passage hasn't edited in a dozen years but was a prolific editor who hardly seems to have been a pusher of fringe theories. Wholesale deletion of all use of this source seems premature and unwarranted at least at this point. Banks Irk (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
The OR "withdrew" this thread because they decided this was the wrong forum, he wasn't interested in community input, but pointed to a nonexistent forum instead, WP: Scholarship. Bottom line, he deleted all citations to a source across multiple articles, claiming it was promoting a fringe theory cited to a Wikipedia clone. RSN should assess whether it is a reliable source or not. Banks Irk (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and reverted their removal of the source from all the relevant articles. If they want to make a WP:FRINGE claim about the information, they're free to do that in the relevant discussion noticeboard, but the source itself seems solid. So I don't think there would be support for removal there either, as it isn't being pushed by fringe sources. Not sure why saying the subject may have a connection to Buddhism as noted by some scholars is such a problem for them, but this isn't my area of research. SilverserenC 02:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require sources to cite their sources, it does not even require sources to have sources. North8000 (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, well perhaps it should, then? I'm impressed by how proud people are to claim that they don't care whether our sources are good or not! I had intended to withdraw this because I don't particularly think I'm likely to convince this crowd of much useful. Unclear why it was reopened. - car chasm (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: People Make Games

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.
There is consensus that People Make Games is generally reliable for the topic of video games, although care should be taken if using the source for WP:BLP-related information due to concerns that they have no clear editorial policy, and they are a WP:EXPERTSPS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)



Which of the following best describes People Make Games's videos in the area of video games?

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

Loki (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Survey (PMG)

  • Option 1 People Make Games is reliable for video game journalism. They've been cited several times by multiple sources we consider reliable (including PC Gamer, Eurogamer, Polygon, Wired, and even the Washington Post somehow), and all their contributors are professional video game journalists. You can even see in the WaPo article (and other places) that they follow basic journalistic standards like asking their subjects for comment before publishing a story. Loki (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 They seem legit, given that other scrupulously reliable sources treat them as reliable. --Jayron32 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for video-games journalism. They're a solid outlet, have broken at least one major story in that area, and are treated as reliable by other sources. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 and I'm glad that people aren't dismissing them automatically because they're on YouTube. casualdejekyll 12:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
    So am I! Such a nice change of pace from normal, especially for those of us who remember how difficult it was to get consensus on Anthony Fantano's status as a "music critic." ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 18:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 as it appears to be a self-published source, but could be used with attribution as WP:EXPERTSPS. The authors are the publishers; there doesn't seem to be any fact checkers, editors, masthead, ethics policies, separation of news from opinion, etc. Just being cited alone doesn't make something an RS; this one is just not professional journalism, it's a well-respected blog, but it should be used only with attribution per EXPERTSPS. It's not like CNET or other professional publications. Levivich (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
    Not that I find too much fault with your logic, but it's a little funny that CNET is the example you give given, well, the discussion basically directly below this one :) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 04:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    Lol, true, that was the first tech publication that came to mind, but my mind is outdated ;-) Levivich (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    I think it's important to note that while PMG is a small organization and doesn't have all those roles as separate people, it clearly does still have those roles. Its employees are all professional video games journalists and do clearly bring journalistic ethics with them in their role as PMG. So for instance, they do request comment from their subjects (implying some sort of ethics policy and also some sort of fact checking procedure), they do separate news from opinion (because they have no opinion section), they pretty clearly are treated as journalists by the industry (as shown by the many sources citing them, but also it's reasonably clear in the Nuclear Gandhi video that they are treated as journalists by games companies as well).
    An important thing to note here is that they're a journalism collective, somewhat like Bellingcat. They're not self-published because no individual journalist gets to publish their reporting alone: PMG as a whole organization is the publisher while the individual reporter is the author. If a story didn't pan out, it wouldn't get animated by their animator (and presumably the other members of the PMG team would also object to releasing it). Loki (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    I disagree that having no opinion section means that they separate fact an opinion. That generally means the opposite, that fact and opinion share the same space in their content. This also means that use of People Make Games as a source should probably be attributed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    I'd add: Having those roles as separate people is kind of the whole point of having separation between reporters and editors. A group blog is a group blog, and sometimes acting ethically (e.g. requesting comment from their subjects) is not a substitute for not having an ethics policy. Being cited is not the same thing as "treated as journalists", and being treated as a journalist is not a substitute for being a journalist. Point-by-point, your response concedes that they do not meet any of the usual criteria for RS journalism (no separation of reporters and editors, no public written ethics policy, no separate fact checkers, no separate opinion section, no professional/credentialed journalists). Levivich (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Washington Post uses them, so I'd support their reliability based on that. I've not seen anything to suggest otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    Not sure if I would use that as a reason to have it as option 1. If anyone it would be a reason to have Washington Post as option 2 or 3 in my view. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for use in the area of videogames. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Option 4 and this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong option 1 Option 2 Reliable for statements of fact in their area of expertise, however, extra caution should be advised for BLP material. Echoing others, I'm quite pleased at the open-mindedness of the comments. WP:RSP fundamentally exists to keep non-factual material out of our articles, but there's zero reason to be rigid about how we define what an RS can be. Thanks for offering this up for discussion, and I hope we see more of these kinds of outlets. DFlhb (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC); edited to add caution about BLP material; hadn't thought of that when writing my comment, and I agree that it's a valid concern 12:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2. WP:SPS with no indication of a published editorial policy or editorial review. This would make it Option 3, but acknowledgement in major outlets should be sufficient for an exception. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2. In agreement with Thebiguglyalien SolVerdict (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
— SolVerdict (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
Note that SolVerdict has 0 edits outside this noticeboard. Soni (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2, I think they're fine to use within their area of expertise (games and game culture) but I would advise against using them alone for BLP info without attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2; Their citations in numerous reliable sources (there's a lot more if you search for them in Google News) demonstrate that they should be reliable for games and related topics (our own sources certainly seem to think so), but with it being unclear whether they're an expert self-published source or something closer to a traditional news organisation, I would echo the caution around BLP matters. twotwos (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (PMG)

  • As we describe on its page, Nuclear Gandhi is an urban legend that Gandhi in the original Civilization was particularly likely to nuke people because of a bug. However, it's come out recently that in fact such a bug did not exist, nor was Gandhi even particularly likely to use nukes, and that this was purely an urban legend the entire time. On the page, we cite this dodgy Russian-language source (translation) for several important claims about it.
However, the source we cite openly says it got this info from the People Make Games YouTube channel, in particular this video, which originally broke the story. And by all appearances this video is a very reliable source. People Make Games is staffed by professional video game journalists, including the one who broke this particular story, they've been cited by other sources we consider reliable (like PC Gamer, Eurogamer, Polygon, Wired, and even the Washington Post somehow) and the video itself contains multiple interviews with the developers themselves saying no such bug exists. In my opinion, PMG is about equal in reliability to Bellingcat for the specific area of video games, and for basically the same reasons.
Yet not only do we not cite the video here, we don't cite People Make Games anywhere, about anything, as far as I can tell. Even for stories that they broke, we always cite someone else just repeating what they said. I believe this is primarily because they publish in video format, on YouTube, rather than in text, and we don't consider "YouTube" reliable. I think this is a silly bias against video content that we'd never allow if PMG was a news channel, and I'm aiming with this RfC to establish that just because PMG publishes its investigations on YouTube, that doesn't mean they're unreliable. Loki (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
While I enjoy watching PMG, they are arguably a self-published source, and thus shouldn't be used as a directly cited source for non-self BLP claims, eg their allegations of abusive behaviour by indie developers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Bellingcat is also arguably a self-published source, yet they're green on WP:RSP, and have absolutely been used for BLP claims before (e.g. they named several Russian intelligence officials involved in the Skripal poisoning). That's why I brought them up, to prove that we don't have a general policy against citizen journalism even in BLPs.
To be clear, I believe the actual situation in both these cases is that PMG/Bellingcat is the publisher and the particular journalist breaking the story is the author, making neither of them WP:SPS. (This is the same as the situation with, say, the NYT; if we said that every employee of an organization is that organization no source would be reliable.) One of the key distinctions between self-published and independent sources is that independent sources have organizational editorial standards, which both PMG and Bellingcat clearly do. Loki (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Per Loki, what makes a self-published source self-published is the lack of a layer of editorial control between the writer and the publication of the information itself. People Make Games is not self-published; they appear to have an editorial staff and vet their stories as well as any other journalism organization. --Jayron32 12:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
People Make Games is a YouTube channel run by 3 people who all collaborate together, far less than the number of journalists working on Bellingcat, so I don't possibly see how it could satisfy having a layer of editorial control between the writer and the publication of the information itself. Most major scoops by PMG have been covered by regular video game journalism websites, so this is really moot anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
But the fact that they keep getting covered by regular video game journalism websites shows that other video game journalists consider them reliable, even despite their small size. And just because other sources frequently cover their work doesn't mean that we don't need to mark them reliable. So for instance, they did an interview with the creators of Blaseball that we ought to be able to quote from, even though to my knowledge it hasn't been cited elsewhere. Loki (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Video game websites cover a lot of shit, frequently including stuff like Twitter posts.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2023 (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.

Beans beans the musical fruit

A preliminary Google n-gram search for “beans the musical” and “beans the magical” yields the following trend (right photo): "beans the musical" first saw use in the late 1940s-1950s, then a resurgence in the 1980s-1990s, and again in the mid-late 00s; "beans the magical" was not found. Longer phrases weren’t found, though alternate phrases like “the musical fruit” and “the magical fruit” were. “the musical fruit” predominates in the modern era, while “the magical fruit” saw a resurgence only in the 1990s. It’s worth noting that surges in use in the 1990s-2000s follow the airing of The Simpsons episodes Whacking Day (1993) and a second episode parodying "The Magical Flute" and "Beans beans the musical fruit" also aired in 2004 (see: https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Musical_Fruit). It's possible this is a key source of confusion.

See talk page section: [Why not both versions?]

@Sundayclose:, @Cstanford.math:.

Requesting two forms of arbitration on this issue:

1) Could someone weigh in to help settle a more convincing consensus (or split decision) regarding adding the common misnomer "the magical fruit" to the page?

2) I recognize it's not standard practice re: WP:RS and it equates to WP:SPS, but I provided a replicable Google n-grams search with methodology listed in the Talk page to justify the need to mention the misnomer "the magical fruit" as it shows just how common this misnomer is. This n-grams search is provided to the right.

This doesn't need to be cited within the page itself, but I hope it better justifies the need for mentioning "the magical fruit." The page sees a lot of good-faith "vandalism" edits changing the lyrics from "the musical fruit" to "the magical fruit," and I believe having a mention up front of the correct lyrics, and misnomer lyrics, would do the page good. I'd propose a simple edit to the opening paragraph that adds something akin to:

"A common misnomer is "Beans beans the magical fruit", which emerged in the mid-1990s.

and depending on how gracious the community is regarding this WP:SPS

"A common misnomer is "Beans beans the magical fruit", which emerged in the mid-1990s, a timeframe following episodes of The Simpsons that included the nursery rhyme.

I can only make the argument that per WP:SPS I am putting forth this repeatable Google n-gram search as evidence independent of any entity (including myself), and so is being used as expert testimony. The page's current citations are quite poor, relying on indirect mentions and what amounts to a student newspaper blog as its only primary references. So I don't believe my well-intentioned WP:SPS status is inferior to the quality of evidence currently on the page. However I am also clearly in COI for adding it to the page myself without external agreement and consensus.

Thanks for anyone willing to read through all of this nonsense about Wikipedia page on a nursery rhyme. All of this is said in good faith, with the intent to follow Wikipedia standard practices, or at least, provide reasoning for why this instance should be treated as an exception.

Cheers -- Crawdaunt (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

An ngram search is not a reliable source, honestly this sounds more like WP:OR than an RS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely it's a WP:OR issue. I think the question in #2 is: in this rare instance, can the community here act as peer reviewers to this WP:OR and judge its validity? Not arguing it's not WP:OR, but am asking if, in this instance, given the replicability of the claim, and if the community judges it so, it might be akin to WP:SPS because the data are given in an archived way that can be reproduced?
Question #1 is: can one add "magical fruit" without a WP:RS source? If one looks at the page, the entire page is built off of citations that stretch the definition of WP:RS in the first place... A student newspaper column is the only cited source of the lyrics, which is partly because things like episodes of The Simpsons that might be 3rd party sources don't have e.g. formal transcripts... and beyond that, the internet is a paltry source of some professional record of "Beans Beans the Musical Fruit" lyrics... -- Crawdaunt (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  • No, and No. You need reliable sources. Find some; it's easy. Did you try to look for a source on Google Books? (hint, hint) Banks Irk (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, I did. I assure you google n-grams was not my 1st instinct. It's actually interesting, because within the n-grams data, it demonstrates that there is no clear hit to "beans the magical" (querying the Google Books + more databases), see: "Ngrams not found: beans the magical." in image file.
    Perhaps a different solution: is this a case where there is clear veracity of the claim (evidenced by frequent good-faith page vandalism, and supported by the N-grams result in the Talk page), the issue is strictly in the lack of a proper citation? If so, could adding "a common misnomer is beans beans the magical fruit.[citation needed]" be appropriate?
    I'm pretty confident I could find examples on the web of this misnomer being used, which could be cited as evidence of the misnomer existing. These would likely be blogs or other non-WP:RS, and so couldn't be cited themselves as authoratative sources, but rather could only be cited as evidence of the misnomer, perhaps only in the Talk page to leave a record. In that case, the main page edit would strictly just be the simple statement + the citation needed tag? -- Crawdaunt (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
in this rare instance, can the community here act as peer reviewers to this WP:OR and judge its validity? No, not in this instance not in any other instance. OR is not acceptable, no area or issue gets a carve out from that.
can one add "magical fruit" without a WP:RS source? Again no, WP:V is not negotiable. If no reliable source exists to verify the content it can't be added or should be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Levivich will probably disagree, but isn't this covered by WP:BEANS? EEng 20:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    No, it's WP:FRUIT. Levivich (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    How many times have I told you to lay off the gay jokes? EEng 23:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    No, it's WP:FART. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
    How many times have I told you to lay off the fart jokes? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Find a reliable source rather than doing original research on Google. Don't assume there aren't any - it's quite possible that some latter-day Iona and Peter Opie have written, or will write, an encyclopaedia of 20th-century American nursery rhymes. Daveosaurus (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
    Yes I agree with all of the above (except with the insistence that I just "try harder", per my responses above and here). I will focus my current question:
    The fact that this misnomer exists is not debated. The issue is my inability to find a WP:RS that satisfies the community's, and indeed my own, requirements of WP:RS. Thus why it's not on the page currently. Again, see the n-grams search, which shows "beans the magical" simply doesn't have a searchable hit in Google Books. Trying harder doesn't make n-grams exist. "Beans the magical" simply isn't a search term that has hits on databases like Google Books.
    QUESTION: so could it be possible to add the fact that the misnomer exists with a [citation needed] tag? That's basically what the [citation needed] tag is for isn't it? Otherwise any statements lacking a WP:RS would always be taken down, rather than being given a [citation needed] tag.
    .
    Thanks for responses. Please stop telling me to try harder though. I'm sure Iona and Peter Opie have written, or will write, on Beans Beans the Musical Fruit. I doubt, backed up by n-gram evidence, that any of their available work mentions the misnomer "Beans Beans the Magical Fruit." OR is not appropriate as a citation, we all agree. But OR can be considered on Talk pages like this one to inform the conversation!
    -- Crawdaunt (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
    Anything lacking an RS can be taken down at any time, the WP:BURDEN is always on the person adding the content. The relevant text for citation need tags is Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Considering that you have looked and can't find any RS adding the content with tags doesn't seem appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Eurasian Times

Nothing to do here. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 04:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

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

[28] Is the Eurasian Times considered a reliable source? It's used in some articles, especially ones that relate to military equipment and geopolitical affairs. They say they have a team of "highly-trained journalists" on their about us page, but I would like to know your opinions too. Thank you. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 22:17, 8 March 2023 (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.

Atlas Obscura

I've always been under the impression that we did not consider this reliable, but based on discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Chemirocha, would like to get further input on this. Hog Farm Talk 19:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Atlas Obscura is user-created by contributions from its paying members, so it is basically a SPS and not reliable. It needs to be removed from the article. Banks Irk (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the User Submissions section of the terms of use make it a clear no, it's user generated content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Wargamer/Pocket Tactics

I was asking this at the tea house, and I was sent here. Is Pocket Tactics generally reliable? I'm working on Draft:Doors (video game), and I'm trying to find sources for the gameplay section, as you need sources to explain how the game works. I found this. [1] and I'm wondering if it is reliable. LeGoldenBoots (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say reliable within its specific area of expertise (video games) rather than generally reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't pretend to be able the assess the reliability of websites and magazines devoted to video games. The website has been around for a while, and the chief editor and the author of the story do appear to have considerable experience in the field, but given the nature of the genre, its difficult to fit them into the usual criteria for reliable sources. The advice that you got at the Tea House is probably good - you don't need to have every source vetted at RSN. Go ahead and use it in your proposed article, and if the reliability of the source is challenged, discuss it on the article talk page. If consensus can't be reached there, then is the time to come back here for additional comments. Good luck on your article. Banks Irk (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Reliability is contextual and depends on, among other things, how WP:EXCEPTIONAL the claims in question are; we also try to use the WP:BESTSOURCES, which means smaller / lower-reputation sources are more usable for unexceptional statements where higher-quality sources don't say anything at all. Generally speaking the sorts of material cited on articles about videogames are not particular exceptional; it's usually fine to use smaller genre-sites like these for things like a game's release date, summaries of the gameplay, attributed reviews and so on. If it's something WP:BLP-sensitive or exceptional like "and also the game's creator once shot a dog out of a cannon", that's different, but that only comes up occasionally. --Aquillion (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [[1]]

RFC: ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom in re reasons for book bans

I bring this up here based on the (unchecked) assumption that this source is used for lots of articles (since lots of articles on artistic works have sections on their censorship).

In the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grapes_of_Wrath#Censorship, we have a great many claims like

> That same year [1986], the book was challenged at the Moore County school system in Carthage, North Carolina because of the book's use of the phrase "God damn."

Which cites the page https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/classics, and the statement is presumably supported by

> Challenged at the Moore County school system in Carthage, NC (1986) because the book contains the phase "God damn."

No other information is given.

I see no reason not to treat the ALA OIF as a RS for the purpose of where and when books are challenged or banned. The question is whether it is also R for the reasons for the challenge/ban.

I mean, I haven't actually caught them in an act of gross oversimplification or anything (yet), but how would I know? Suppose I wanted to verify that the aforementioned ban was because of the phrase "God damn" and for no other reason? Maybe there was some kind of school board meeting, and maybe it had recorded minutes, and maybe I could get a copy of them. Or maybe this was just the impression of some Moore County librarian who sent a report to the OIF, which was inaccurate due to the librarian being biased or stupid or something. In either case, did OIF investigate to verify the report? Are they any good at investigating? How would I even know? I mean, I get in general how I could in theory investigate and form an opinion; I'm just expressing my uncertainty for rhetorical purposes.

It makes sense to me that someone might try to ban Grapes of Wrath on the theory that it was communist propaganda, or that it portrayed a minister taking advantage of a woman. I don't support it of course (I find communist propaganda entertaining), but those seem like reasons people might actually try to ban or restrict a book. What seems odd is that someone would be opposed to the use of the phrase "God damn" but NOT either of the other two issues. Which makes me think this is somebody's gross oversimplification--either OIF itself or the reporter with OIF's uncritical acceptance--for the purpose of portraying censors as blundering cavemen. I know that in real life people are constantly surprising me with their stupidity, but I've seen plenty of gross oversimplification too.

The only info I could find giving insight as to the trustworthiness of the claims comes from OIF's FAQ

> The ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) receives reports from libraries, schools, and the media on attempts to ban books in communities across the country. We compile lists of challenged books in order to inform the public about censorship efforts that affect libraries and schools.

This doesn't fill me with confidence. It's basically just "Claims come in. Maybe they are trustworthy. Maybe we check them. Then we report them." If they actually said "We investigate reports from libraries, schools, and the media..." then they would at least be _claiming_ to be a RS, but they don't. Dingsuntil (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

So (and I want to make sure I understand you), you have no reason to think they make stuff up, but you do not think they are an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Or to put it another way, you don't trust the WP:Secondary source so you want to go back to the WP:Primary source? That will require you to do some wp:original research, will it not? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
No. I have no reason to think they verify that the reports they receive are accurate. They don't even imply that they do this. And some of those reports could come from parts of the media which are already considered un-RS by Wikipedia (since they just come from "the media"). Dingsuntil (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

[29] Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  • The ALA Report is reliable and there are other sources, such as the one linked by Slatersteven that show it is accurate. The problem with the article section is not the source. The problem is that it is just a completely unfocused list taken straight from the report without bothering to even use quotations. Further, is it really notable that some parent or minister "challenged" a book in some bible belt backwaters? There was real censorship of The Grapes of Wrath when it was issued, and that the censorship gave rise to issuance the ALA's Library Bill of Rights. Now that's notable. [30] . Banks Irk (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
    I agree with you about the general problem with the article, but my concern is not the article. You say the ALA report is reliable, but how do you know this? I searched the archives for previous discussion of it and didn't find any. Did I miss it? Or is that just your opinion based on the fact that it concurs with other sources? I assume that lots of un-RS mostly concur with RS too.
    As I said, the other source does not bear them out on the _reason_ for the challenge/ban, just that a challenge/ban had taken place, and I restricted the scope of this to reasons (although maybe I shouldn't have; how many of these have we checked besides the 1 example from Carthage?)
    In any case, the notability point is probably at the heart of this. It sorta feels like they just aggregate un-notable examples, and are just a bad source for individual examples (as opposed to for "Many books are challenged in America today" and similar) because those examples are not notable. Or if they were notable, it's because there's other press about them so cite that. I think those examples are probably also un-RS insofar as you can't aggregate that many unnotable examples and investigate them AND do it cheaply, but that's not really necessary to demonstrate that citing it like this shouldn't be done.
    I dunno, is there a list of "Fundamentally un-notable sources" somewhere? Dingsuntil (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
You're overthinking this. The ALA is a reliable source for whether, where, and why censorship of books in libraries has been pursued. We do not need to look behind where the ALA sources its information. Banks Irk (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be a link to a book about book bans/challenges in general. Is it supposed to be a publication of the OIF or otherwise connected with it? It does not appear to bear out their claim on the reason for the ban in Carthage, although it doesn't contradict it either.
If you want me to draw some particular conclusion from this, maybe say so. All I see is "Better sources than OIF's website exist." Dingsuntil (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The point is it shows the ALA is not obviously making something up, which would be the only reason to say its not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

volunteermarek.substack.com

CLOSED
Not an RS. Any further discussion is going to generate more heat than light. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Does WP:EXPERTSPS apply to volunteermarek.substack.com[31] in the context of Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust[32] as Arado Ar 196 claims it does[33]? I'm not seeing anything which indicates that the author is a subject matter expert, overall it appears to be a questionable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I would agree, who is "volunteermarek", and what makes them any more of an expert than the rest of us? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
(ec) The discussion at RSN appears to be a continuation of the discussion that has resulted in the current arbcom case - spreading it to here really doesn't help anybody and merely fans the fires - please stop this.Nigel Ish (talk)
I am not even aware of any arbcom case. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
This Arbcom case.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
"Glaukopis" does not appear to be mentioned there, so how is the above RSN thread (or this one relating to it) a continuation? nor is Horse a participant (Though they are mentioned in passing in one comment) Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I give up - the discussion revolves about Grabowski & Klein which is the starting point of the Arbcom case, but as everybody appears to think that it is a good idea to cause as much drama as possible, I'll leave you to it. I'll leave this discussion as it really isn't about reliable sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean spreading it here? Look at the diff or just scroll up, this is a claim that was made *here* Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No, citing our own editor for their statements about Wikipedia involves all sorts of issues WP:COI, etc that we'd rather not have. But the real problem in this area is the fact that we give academic sources an elevated status they don't deserve. The G&K paper [34] mentioned above is one example of that, but far from the only one. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:SPS applies, but Volunteer Marek has not been established as a published expert in this subject (if you makes you feel better Marek, neither have I). You could use it as a primary source on Marek's opinions, but even that should invite close scrutiny for COI and weight. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
"whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
Is Marek a published academic in a relevant field for this topic? If no, then no. SilverserenC 17:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Is this a joke? Among all the people to have ever edited en-wiki — excluding Amustard and another pseudonymous diplomat — I am perhaps the most knowledgeable editor on Turkmen affairs. Does that mean a hypothetical TrangaBellam.Substack.com is a SPSRS? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Can someone close this? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
My substack is not an WP:RS as it is self published. When and if my response gets published in a third party source then we can come back here and have a talk. Having said that, there was absolutely no reason for Horse's Eye Back to start this new thread - they could've just replied in the original - and the fact that they even didn't bother to ping me, even though they 100% know that I'm here, since they've been following my edits scrupulously for the past couple of weeks and leaving snipping little comments everywhere that don't do anything except appear to intent to pester (latest example) and just spread drama across Wikipedia. Like am I really gonna have to ask for an IBAN here? Volunteer Marek 19:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
You weren't tagged specifically because I "100% know that I'm here" and tagging you wouldn't do anything except make you feel even more persecuted and martyred than you already do. Why tag someone who you know is going to participate anyway? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2023 (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.

Can I return this amendment?

Fixed lead line as per better source Karsan Chanda (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss the issue at the articles talk page, both the original source and it's replacement are from respectable publisher and are recently published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested: Will it have to be nominated for discussion? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean. My point was that at first glance both sources seem reliable, so it would be best discussed at the articles talk page. The best way to handle such situations is WP:BRD, so you could revert but should make sure to start a conversation about why you did so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Streets.mn

Can someone here tell me if Streets.mn is a reliable source for defining "non-conforming" housing in the Minneapolis article's Neighborhoods section? At the time, 70 percent of residential land was zoned for detached, single-family homes,[1] though many of those areas had "nonconforming" buildings with more housing units.[2] I am asking because the site's About page says, "The website Streets.mn makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site." The city's website uses the term but never seems to explain what it means as Streets.mn does. They might sneak under the wire as subject matter experts. Thank you in advance.

References

  1. ^ Kahlenberg, Richard D. (October 24, 2019). "How Minneapolis Ended Single-Family Zoning". The Century Foundation. Retrieved March 13, 2023.
  2. ^ Shaffer, Scott (February 7, 2018). "Low-density Zoning Threatens Neighborhood Character". Streets.mn. Retrieved March 13, 2023.

-SusanLesch (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Specifically yes, generally the question is slightly murkier. They have an editorial board and policy, but that policy makes clear they do not fact check submissions and rely upon community feedback for corrections. They're articles have been recirculated by Strong Towns, which is itself a reliable source, and lends extra credibility. So they could be a source for simple details, such as noncomforming buildings, but nothing more controversial. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Film credits from video on pCloud

This edit [35] to the filmography table at Lollu Sabha Maaran cites a video clip posted on pCloud to verify that Lollu Sabha Maaran is in the 2023 film Kannitheevu (not the 1981 film of the same name linked at Kanni Theevu). The video clip shows the end credits from the film. It appears to be a genuine clip from the film, but pCloud appears to be a hosting service where users can upload files to share. So not knowing who posted it, does that make it WP:UGC and therefore ineligible to be used a reliable source?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 10:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

A clip posted to a video sharing platform by a random person isn't a reliable source. I suggest removing the reference and adding a {{citation needed}} tag. It does appear they she was a caste member but I can't find a reliable source for it, maybe someone else will have better luck. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

deadpresidents.tumblr.com / Anthony Bergan

1. Source. https://deadpresidents.tumblr.com/post/169723571407/are-there-any-books-on-franklin-pierce-that-you

2. Article. Garry Boulard

3 Content. Anthony Bergen in the website Dead Presidents.com has called Boulard's Pierce book "Detailed, fast-paced, and filled with fascinating anecdotes that give a little more color to the life and White House of one of our most obscure Presidents."

I have been going through the sources in Garry Boulard to weed out puffery and I found material cited to Anthony Bergan's tumbler page. Bergan does not appear to have any academic credentials as a Presidential historian, however, he is clearly knowledgeable about the history of US Presidents and is cited by authors in books published by more traditional sources.[36] Would he be a subject-matter expert per WP:BLOG? -Location (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if he's an expert on Pierce or not, because he's not being used to comment on Pierce. He's commenting on the work of Boulard, who is a living person. WP:BLPSPS applies, so this self-published source is a no-go. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What if all the sources are wrong?

I have a curious situation while working on the list of governors of Minnesota. All sources - even ones dating back to at least 1908 - say Stephen Miller took office on January 11, 1863. Every. Single. One.

And yet. I can show that these are completely wrong, with two links to one book:

  • One, that Miller was sworn in around noon on January 13: [37]
  • And, one that Swift (his predecessor) was still considered governor on the morning of January 13: [38]

So, how do I handle this? I thought about just linking the above and changing the date to January 13, but if that goes ahead I feel like we should explain something to the reader? Or, would this count as original research? One thing I know we can't do is uncritically offer January 11 as the date. --Golbez (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have an answer for you... but checking The Weekly Pioneer And Democrat for the timeframe, they don't mention the swearing in of the Governor (but they do mention the choice of new officers on the 13th).... but they don't say anything about the House or Senate doing anything on the 11th, which is unsurprising as it was a Sunday. So I really think you found the truth, but might have to report that "sources disagree". --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
The sources you have linked, at least, do not appear to me to be of particularly high quality. For example, it appears that the pages on the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library are drawn from secondary sources (not, as one might have supposed, from official Minnesota government records), making this a tertiary source, and the same is true of the National Governors Association page. In addition, I see that the St. Cloud Democrat reported on Thursday, January 14, 1864 (Newspapers.com), that Governor Miller was inaugurated on Wednesday. So this is just a matter of quality of sources, and the best sources are telling us without question that the date was January 13. John M Baker (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, wait, 1864? That's why I wasn't finding any discussion of the new Governor in the 1863 source I was looking at. here is a link to the St. Cloud Democrat source he mentioned, for reference purposes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC) And here is the Weekly Press and Democrat giving the date of his inauguration message as the 13th in the issue of the 22nd, as well as the mention of the inauguration in the work of the House that day.... although oddly elsewhere in the paper it's among things listed as happening "yesterday" which would be the 21st (but I presume they transcribed an article without update.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Oh, and if you need the same information in German... --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
In the immortal words of Emily Litella, "Oh! That's very different! Nevermind." Banks Irk (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Erp. Sorry. I've been staring at these numbers for so long that they are really bleeding together. --Golbez (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Well that's disappointing, about the Minnesota library. Ugh. You'd think states would care more. After discovering two weeks ago that every source on the inauguration of Massachusetts governors is wrong, I've lost all faith in them. Alabama and Arkansas spoiled me; curse them for being at the start of the alphabet. Thanks. I have it in my notes to re-evaluate all the "official" sources on my next pass through the articles. --Golbez (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
The earliest mentions of Miller taking office on January 11, 1864 that I could find are two 1876 books: The Legislative Manual of the State of Minnesota and The Centennial Northwest: An Illustrated History of the Northwest. I wonder what earlier editions of the The Legislative Manual of the State of Minnesota might state. Is it possible that he would have been recognized as governor on a certain date prior to taking the oath by some weird rule/law (similar to the 25th Amendment minus the resignation or death of the previous office holder)? -Location (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
OK, I didn't check any of the sources, but looking at the overall situation, it's possible that you are a Boltzman Baby, in which case all the sources are imaginary and we generally treat imaginary sources as unreliable. On a more practical level, this happens with birthdays sometimes, and the general practice is to be like "Smith was born January 11[sources] or January 13[sources]..." If the reader doesn't need detailed info, that's good enough. If she does, she can drill down into the sources and make her own decision. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
A list of the Legislative Manuals of the State of Minnesota can be found here and the first list of governors appears in the 1871 issue found here (see pages 90-91). It has Miller's first day as January 11, 1864. I would use a footnote to state something like: "Official sources note that Miller's first day in office was January 11, 1864. The journal of the Minnesota House of Representatives notes that Miller gave his inaugural speech after being sworn into office by Chief Justice LaFayette Emmett shortly after noon on January 13, 1864." FWIW... -Location (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Inviting comments in a RFC about RS policy

Not an appropriate use of RSN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eyferth_study#Request_for_comment_on_hereditarianism_subsection

This initially began as a RFC about whether to restore content that was removed from one article, but it has recently turned into a more general RFC about removals from a large number of articles, and the approach to sourcing these mass removals are based on. The argument that's been accepted to justify the removals, that's now being reviewed in the RFC, is that the reliability of a source depends primarily on what viewpoints it presents.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship currently says: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Depending on the RFC's outcome, this part of the policy may have to be amended to say that sources from reputable academic publishers and journals are sometimes unreliable sources depending on the viewpoints they include. Whether that's true is a question of great importance to RS policy, so I invite readers of the RS noticeboard to comment in that discussion. --AndewNguyen (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I strongly recommend at this point that you re-review the arbitration decisions on this topic area before attempting to relitigate them - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean? The most recent time this matter was brought before ArbCom, they responded that the proposed amendment was not a useful way to address the sourcing issue, and their only decision was that someone should make a new arbitration request narrowly focused on that issue. It isn't clear how Mosi Nuru's effort to resolve it by a community discussion contradicts that instruction. --AndewNguyen (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
@AndewNguyen: How do you know that Mosi Nuru –– a brand new user with almost no edits outside this very narrow topic –– had the intention to resolve a matter that was brought before ArbCom almost a year and a half ago? Did they communicate this to you privately? Generalrelative (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
No, the only thing I know is that it's a RFC about the same general issue that was brought before ArbCom: the assumption, which seems widespread among Wikipedia editors, that WP:FRINGE takes priority over WP:V and/or WP:RS. --AndewNguyen (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Nonsense. The RfC is about Should the "hereditarianism" subsection of "Eyferth study" be restored? The OP, Mosi Nuru, has given no indication that they have even read –– let alone understood –– these policies and guidelines. And no one has given any indication that the relevant parts of WP:FRINGE (that is, WP:FRIND and WP:ONEWAY) aren't working precisely as intended. If you and a handful of other SPAs and LTAs refuse to WP:LISTEN, that is an annoyance but not a problem with the P&G themselves. Generalrelative (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Soliciting editors to weigh in on a RFC elsewhere is not the purpose of RSN or even of its talk page. Somebody with sufficient stripes on their sleeve hat this please. Banks Irk (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Another reason to hat: it's not a good thing that the RfC is being used to further a dispute about other articles. That participants have decided to use the RfC to advocate for project-wide change is undesirable, and it shouldn't be encouraged. No legitimate consensus can form in this one-article RfC that would affect others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Paul Chrystal

Can Paul Chrystal, or more specifically, his Women at War in the Classical World be considered WP:RS for historical topics, and an obscure one a that such as the Kambojas? I would say no per the following reasons;

  1. ) The book does not have an academic publisher. Its publisher is the obscure, "small, independent" Grub Street Publishing [39]
  2. ) The vast majority of his works, if not everything, does not have any academic publisher.
  3. ) Nothing suggests that he is an expert in the field. He makes a huge variety of books on random subjects (Secret York, The History of Sweets, Secret Middlesbrough, In Bed with the Romans, etc), as seen here [40]. Here [41] it says that he "studied Latin and Greek at the University of Hull and then specialized in Latin love poetry for his MPhil at the University of Southampton." Not really relevant for historical topics.
  4. ) I literally can't find a single, academic source that actually cites his work, let alone the Women at War in the Classical World. Which further reinforces that this is not WP:RS, and thus I fail to see why we would use it when academic sources doesn't even do it.

HistoryofIran (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

1) The book itself does have an academic publisher Pen and Sword Books which specialises in military history.
2) Same as above
3)As stated in my talk page 1) He has a degree in Classics which specialises in the Study of ancient greek and roman history, language etc 2) the fact that he publishes books in multiple genres doesn't mean that his books and knowledge in a specific genre should be discredited. 3) He has since been history advisor to local visitor attractions such as the National Trust in York, writing features for national newspapers, and broadcasting on BBC Radio York, BBC Radio Manchester, BBC Radio Tees, on the Radio 4 PM programme and on the BBC World Service
4)Citation of a source doesn't mean his word should be discredited if he doesn't have any. Also considering how he is a secondary reference who cites ancient historians such as diodorus and isn't as well known of an author. Trigarta (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Pen and Sword Books is not an academic publisher, which can easily be seen in their Wikipage or official page for that matter [42]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
It literally says on their wiki that they're a British publisher and also states it was published by them on the book... https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VMWIDwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=kambojas+alexander&source=gbs_navlinks_s Trigarta (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
"British" and "academic" are two different words. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
A publisher is a Publisher, please explain to me the difference. And since you haven't replied to the other 2 points ive said I'm going to assume you agree on my points and weve reached consensus there. Trigarta (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm done explaining stuff to you, if you can't tell the difference and importance between an academic publisher and one who isn't, that's your own problem. No, I think your two "points" are utter nonsense, and I expect others to think the same. I just don't want you to WP:BLUDGEON this thread. Don't assume stuff on my behalf again, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Academic Publishing is a subsection of a Publishing. And them not specifically stating they're specially an 'academic publisher' doesn't mean that the books under their name should be discredited especially as a long established publishing company owned by the even longer established Barnsley Chronicle Trigarta (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Academic Publishing is a subsection of a Publishing, but Pen and Sword Books is not an academic publisher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
But not all publishers are equal, some will publish any old crap, some will publish if you pay them, some have agendas. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I am deeply skeptical. Pen & Sword aren't an academic publisher; that's not inherently proof that they are unequivocally unreliable, but we should definitely prefer academic sources if possible. Women at War in the Classical World doesn't seem to have had any academic attention that I can find. Chrystal doesn't seem to have any substantial record of academic publications, and his degrees (BA in classics, MPhil in Latin love poetry) are only tangentially related to his publications. All of that together would make Chrystal a less-than-ideal, but not unusable, source. However, my previous exposure to Paul Chrystal's work was at Cleitagora, where he apparently got his information from Wikipedia. Given that, I would advise being extremely cautious about using his work.
In this particular case, the Chrystal page in question is basically just two long quotes: one from Diodorus Siculus and one from K.S. Dardi's These Kamboj People. If Dardi is a reliable source we can cite him directly, and if he isn't then laundering him through Chrystal doesn't change that. As for Diodorus – I am unable to track down the source of the text that Chrystal quotes, which makes me highly suspicious. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

AI-generated reference

This edit [43] to Google Workspace cites a source that is a "news" article at JBNews with a byline of "AINews". AINews is described as:

AINews
AI Bot for generating articles that will be edited by the Jenbn Team. Don't hesitate to contact the Jenbn Team if you notice any misleading information in this contents.

Is this acceptable to cite? I am inclined to say it is not but would like to read what others say.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 10:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the 'submit a post' link [44] on the JenBN home page, I doubt that any of their content meets WP:RS, even if not AI generated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely not a reliable source. Woodroar (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_399&oldid=1181292057"