Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

RFC: People Make Games

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

• 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)

• 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 in the absence of any evidence of unreliability, and given the quite strong arguments in favour of reliability given above. 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)

Discussion

• 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)

• Question Do they have a corrections policy? Do the follow it? Adoring nanny (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  They don't have a website outside of YouTube and Patreon, so, as far as I can tell, not a published one. However, they have responded to criticism of their work before at length. Loki (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure why we need this source when Sid Meier himself has said this is a myth. But it's not the countless callbacks and references that make the nuclear Gandhi story so funny to me. It's the fact that none of it is true. The overflow error never happened at all. (Sid Meier's Memoir!: A Life in Computer Games p. 262) Although it did exist as an Easter Egg in Civ V. Geogene (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's not just Nuclear Gandhi I'm talking about here, they've broken other scoops in the past as well. Loki (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• I don’t know this outlet well enough to opine on general reliability, but I would oppose depreciation. That is (and should be) saved for extremely rare cases. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, I absolutely wouldn't like them to be depreciated, I'm just following the standard format. Loki (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment – I've contacted Chris Bratt of People Makes Games to inquire about editorial policies. DecafPotato (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's a good idea. Loki (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Beware: CNet running AI-generated articles, byline "CNet Money"

CNet, usually regarded as an ordinary tech RS, has started experimentally running [1][2] AI-generated articles, which are riddled with errors. Currently these articles are under the byline "CNet Money". So far the experiment is not going down well, as it shouldn't. I haven't found any yet, but any of these articles that make it into a Wikipedia article need to be removed - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Since November, no less, per your sources. If they haven't yet given up on it, it's concerning. Could it be time to downgrade CNet? I note that at WP:RSP, they are green, but the RfC is dated. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That is very worrying... Its one thing if an AI assisted and human edited article is up to the normal standards but I think we do have a real problem here with the content being so much less accurate than their standard content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping this is one high-up editor or publisher with a bee in their bonnet, and the reputational damage will put paid to the initiative before it spreads too far. I've never been a huge fan of CNet, but even at my most cynical about it I wouldn't have classed it with SEO spam blogs - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have always thought that CNET was a mediocre source, but this is really on another level. I would support downgrading the source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Is downgrading necessary? These articles don't affect the rest of the articles they make. Just putting a note on RSP that any with the byline CNet Money are unreliable should be good enough. Silverseren^C 19:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur - just that for now would be more than enough. Hopefully they come to their senses. FWIW, the AI articles are all under www.cnet.com/personal-finance - I just looked through them all, and Wikipedia has 24 articles with that string in their source, and none are from the bot - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I also agree for now. Seems like there is consensus among the participants here. Do we need an RfC? Or can we just do it? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that if we have some reason to believe that CNET's personal finance section has a lot of stories with material inaccuracies, we should put a clarifying note for editors using this department to reference articles. I'm not sure if futurism.com is a reliable source, but the things they've pointed out seem to be obvious errors (like if you deposit $10,000 into a savings account that earns 3% interest compounding annually, you'll earn $10,300 at the end of the first year). These are the same kind of errors that human writers tend to make, so I don't know if this is a special case, apart from the apparent failure of editorial oversight. jp×g 00:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Futurism is an ehhhh source, a lot of reblogging, but they've been doing some good journalism lately.

On CNet, I'd wait until and unless this is more of a problem. I was posting more to warn editors to look out for this sort of thing.

I do think in general, any source that starts putting up AI-generated text in this manner warrants a close inspection - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I just read this article from The Verge, which corroborates Futurism's report. Very concerning, but it would seem only their Money-related articles are affected. At this stage, I wouldn't suggest they be blacklisted, but this scandal should be noted at RSP and editors should be warned against citing Money-related articles published since November 2022. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a note, WP:RSP currently has no link to or mention of this discussion, or the brief one from spring last year. The last linked discussion was back in 2015. This may be a concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137a (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Update: https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/20/23564311/cnet-pausing-ai-articles-bot-red-ventures InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I added a link to this discussion (as well as one other discussion about CNET that has been archived) in WP:RSP, but I have't changed the status or the description yet. 137a (talk • edits) 14:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe post a warning, Cnet has generally been good for tech/computer news. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Red Ventures's portfolio

Following this, I think it's time to downgrade CNet's reliability. That's just outrageous. Given the reports, it's probably time to check and see if there's anything else we need to do about Red Ventures's huge portfolio, which seem to also employed the same tools and processes. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Why would them stopping a limited section run of AI generated articles be a reason to downgrade them? If they had expanded the articles to any section, then sure. But the article you're responding to is them doing the exact opposite. Silverseren^C 06:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's take a step back and consider what we've witnessed here. CNET generated a bunch of content with AI, listed some of it as written by people (!), claimed it was all edited and vetted by people, and then, after getting caught, issued some 'corrections' followed by attacks on the journalists that reported on it ("Some writers — I won’t call them reporters ... "). According to the reporting we've seen so far, they've evidently implemented these tools and approaches throughout their portfolio but won't say exactly where or how.

And why should we believe anything this company says? Red Ventures has not been remotely transparent about any of this—the company could at best be described as deceitful—and the company runs a big stable of SEO-focused content mills across its ecosystem just like what we're seeing on post-acquisiton CNET, including Healthline and an EDU-focused branch (!). It's worth looking into how we're using properties that they own as sources—that is, those that aren't already listed as extremely dubious (Red Ventures owns, as you'll notice, the notorious The Points Guy).

I expect we'll probably hear a lot more about this in the future, as Red Ventures seems to have to date been largely passed over by investigative journalists, but in the meantime we should be tacking stock of what this company is pumping out and where it's appearing on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Then we should consider splitting CNET into pre-September 2020 and post-September 2020 (when they were acquired by Red Ventures), in a similar fashion to Newsweek and Forbes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Would oppose this pretty strongly (for now), given that the relevant articles have all apparently received corrections, and that CNET is suspending this dubious "experiment". Source downgrades are meant to address general reliability problems, not to be punitive. The other properties owned by Red Ventures are not relevant, since the WP:RSP entry is specifically about CNET; and we don't judge one property's reliability based any other media properties that share the same owner. DFlhb (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Further on this from Futurism: CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive Plagiarism: CNET's AI-written articles aren't just riddled with errors. They also appear to be substantially plagiarized - the hazard of AI text generators where they spit the source back out. It's possible that this will give Red Ventures pause ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Another piece from Futurism out today on AI-generated problem content from Bankrate, another Red Ventures property. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

And another one, this time covering Red Ventures EDU, which appears to be producing many AI articles steering visitors to schools like Liberty University and the University of Phoenix. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Buzzfeed also said it will use AI to generate some content ("interactive" content, not clear if this includes news). Perhaps we should consider listing ChatGPT or AI as its own line at WP:RSP (whether or not individual sources that use it are also listed individually)...? -sche (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Interactive content by definition does not include traditional news articles. In the context of Buzzfeed interactive content means their famously stupid quizzes [3]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

CNET "editorial firewalls have been repeatedly breached" to benefit advertisers

Given this new Verge report out about "the guardrails that keep editorial content independent [have been] repeatedly breached" to benefit advertisers, I would support downgrading post-Red Venture sale CNET to "use with caution". (November 2022 and after.) This is related to but separate from the AI stuff above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support leaning toward future deprecation. If this report is true—and there seems to be every reason to believe it—this is absolutely unacceptable. I think "use with caution" is letting these bad actors off the hook quite lightly and I think we now have every reason to suspect post-acquisition CNET and other organizations under the Red Ventures portfolio as outright unreliable—where's the line between a CNET ad and a CNET article now? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support, we took the wait and see approach before and now we can see its bad... Agree with bloodofox that "use with caution" is a minimum, our response is probably going to have to be more reasonable and proportionate than that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Note Red Ventures has owned CNET since October 2020. I would Support downgrading to "use with caution" post-sale. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Reading the Verge report, I have a hard time trusting that they wouldn't modify older articles from before Nov 2022 or the Red Ventures acquisition in 2020. RV is a private equity firm out for a quick buck and is willing to burn every bit of CNET's accumulated reputation to get it. We cannot trust them to provide reliable coverage going forward. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support for post-sale articles (post-2020); older ones should still be fine, though, especially archived pages from archive.org. CNET was a good source for computer/tech news in its heyday. Phediuk (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• I'm putting my thoughts on the whole situation here to avoid breaking it into multiple comments:

Generally reliable for articles produced before the Red Ventures acquisition in October 2020.

Situationally reliable for articles produced post-October 2020, per above. Articles on subjects mentioned specifically in The Verge's report, as well as review based on a review copy or version of a product, should be treated as unreliable or require inline attribution.

Generally unreliable for articles written by artificial intelligence. The use of AI as seen in CNET articles borders on WP:USERG as well. DecafPotato (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

forgot to mention but I'm very against deprecation – per my thoughts above. DecafPotato (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Phediuk. Timur9008 (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Schierbecker (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of the Catholic Culture website

Editor @Horse Eye's Back: has stated that the website Catholic Culture along with everything hosted on it (be it electronic reproduction of material already published somewhere else and hosted on it, or publications by Catholic Culture) are to be removed from Wikipedia, as the user claims this website is not a reliable for any of its content. The user has already begun removing the sources from the website (from 22:43, 26 January 2023 to 22:57, 26 January 2023).

I oppose such a jugement on Catholic Culture (CC). From experience, yes CC is reliable. And it hosts electronic versions of previously published documents (journal papers, dictionary entries) which most of the times cannot be found anywhere else, with proper referencing of its original source (e.g. [4]).

The reproduction of documents on CC, from those I have been able to compare, are faithful:

• compare this entry of the Modern Catholic Dictionary with its original paper publication (p. 104). You can compare any of those Modern Catholic Dictionary entries, all of them are hosted on CC's website; it took this one randomly to prove my point.
• compare their electronic retranscription of this paper to the one from EWTN
• their transcription of this chapter to the one on EWTN

Horse Eye's Back main criticism is the About Us page of CC. I do not see why the user thinks such a page would indicate CC would not be a reliable source. Compare it to the same 'about us' pages for similar websites which as far as I know are considered as RSs: America [5], Catholic News Agency [6], Catholic Herald [7], The Tablet [8], Orthodox Times [9], Orthodoxie.com [10], Christianity Today [11]. Veverve (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

CNA is not a WP:RS (its an EWTN product, nothing EWTN touches is reliable), Christianity Today is not a WP:RS. Not intimately familiar with the others but I'm getting the feeling that you don't really understand what a WP:RS is. I asked you before and I'l ask you again, is there even one sentence you feel comfortable pulling from their about us page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Who or what is EWTN? Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

EWTN is an extremist broadcasting organization operating out of Alabama. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I see - but what makes you think CC and EWTN are connected? It doesn't seem as if they are. Read that "About us" page more carefully, & follow the links. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they're connected, what gave you that impression? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

a) You said: "CNA is not a WP:RS (its an EWTN product, nothing EWTN touches is reliable)", which I misread - you use too many initials that non-Americans won't follow, and b) you keep going on about EWTN - why is that? Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

OP mentions EWTN almost as much in their opening statement as Catholic Culture. Wouldn't have gone on about it except some guy asked "Who or what is EWTN" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

All the websites I gave are sources used throughout Wikipedia for years and considered as reliable by all people who have regularly worked on WP articles concerning Christianity. Your attack on EWTN is gratuitous; CNA is a very professional and neutral specialised news source. Veverve (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

No it isn't, EWTN is not a WP:RS. It isn't even a RS for Catholic opinion because they fight with the church so much. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

an extremist broadcasting organization, they fight with the church so much: says who? EWTN is not the topic. You appear to be extremely biased, to the point of not being non-constructive. Veverve (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Says any reliable history of EWTN... Given the list of "reliable sources" you just trotted out I wouldn't be throwing accusations of bias around. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

CNA is quite well-respected for its reporting as far as I can tell (alongside its sister publication, ACI Prensa), and it's a well-established WP:NEWSORG. Christianity Today is also a well-established news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Merely being affiliated with a religious group does not make something unreliable, Horse Eye's Back. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

CNA/EWTN is *not* well-respected and is not well established, its niche at best. What sort of reputation does Christianity Today have outside of evangelical circles? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Catholic News Agency has an editorial structure where journalists report the facts on the ground and editors who review reporting and conduct fact-checking. My understanding is that it's generally reliable for reporting on Church affairs, and that it has a good reputation among journalists who cover the Catholic Church. CNA is also nineteen years old at this point, so I would say that it's pretty well-established; it's certainly not a new upstart like Axios (website) (a WP:GREL source, founded in 2016) or BuzzFeed News (another WP:GREL source, founded in 2011), and I'd find it incoherent to argue that the latter two have somehow had enough time to become well-established if the formermost source has not. ACI Prensa is even older (founded in 1980).

Christianity Today, outside of the mainstream Evangelical population, generally has a positive reputation going back a long time (The New York Times has referred to it as respected as far back as 1972!). I'm frankly surprised that this is even a question. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

"generally reliable for reporting on Church affairs, and that it has a good reputation among journalists who cover the Catholic Church" so like I said... "its niche at best" if you want to continue this discussion we can open a section for EWTN/CNA. If not lets focus on Catholic Culture. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Certainly here reliable for what is a question.

Age alone is not a solid indicator, or being respected in 1972, as some sources that may once have been reliable may have fallen of late to printing things like The Jewish Racket Known as the Right-to-Life Movement as seen with one of the sources referenced in this thread (not that Fidelity Press necessarily ever was reliable). These kind of sources are of course reliable as primary sources for the opinions of the people they publish. What places Eternal Word Television Network as more reliable than The Christian Broadcasting Network?

That a source might have a bias or agenda doesn't impact its reliability (e.g. BuzzFeed News) but once challenged we need to have the discussion of what current editorial oversight and fact checking is taking place. Where did you learn of the CNA's editorial structure and fact-checking? That does sound like evidence of reliability. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

E. Michael Jones, the writer of the piece you're referring to, has... never exactly been a reliable guy (there's enough written about him that he may be notable... that's a new article idea). But where is that on the Catholic Culture site? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This was published by the same publisher, so they are reprinting material from a dubious publisher, and this was one of the things that Veverve listed as something to cite to Catholic Culture. It's tangential of course, but it does call in doubt to my mind exactly what is being published on the site. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I found that through [12] along with numerous other antisemitic publications. Basically the entire publisher looks like garbage.

E. Michael Jones does look like a good candidate for an article. I'll make a stub if enough sources turn up. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: I've created Draft:E. Michael Jones. It looks like the article itself is admin-level salted after socking, so I think it might be better to develop it in the draftspace until it's a fuller article rather than to simply stub it. There are plenty of sources in addition to the ADL profile, including Several pages in Catholic Intellectuals and Conservative Politics in America, 1950-1985, Reviews of his books (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), a feature piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer, etc., so I think there will be enough to demonstrate WP:NBASIC (there's at least 3 pieces of SIGCOV about him here, plus the reviews of his books to help fill in some of the details on his writings). Feel free to join/expand if you'd like; it's currently beyond barebones. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The difference between CNA and CBN starts at the top: the editorial staff actually has a journalistic pedigree, blending experience in secular and Cathoic Journalism. The editorial team of CNA is led by editor-in-chief Shannon Mullen, who worked for 10 years with the Asbury Park Press. During that time, he was part of the team that was a finalist for a Pullitzer Prize in Public Service and the Frank A. Blethen Award for Local Accountability Reporting from the American Society of News Editors, as well as winning national awards from the National Press Club, the National Association of Black Journalists for various pieces of his investigative journalism. Assisting Mullen as CNA's current Europe Editor is AC Wimmer, who worked as both as a journalist and then as a senior executive in Australia's SBS for a decade before moving to CNA as the founding Editor-in-Chief of CNA's German-language service CNA Deutsch. Zelda Caldwell, formerly an editor of Catholic online periodical Aleteia, is a News Editor.

Meanwhile, it's a bit hard for me to discern the editorial structure of CBN, but it looks like Pat Robertson and his son Gordon are the people making editorial decisions for a large portion of the organization. Neither are journalists by nature, and the whole editorial structure doesn't really hold up to that of CNA. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, that sounds reliable on the surface. CNA is not the site in question unless it relates Catholic Culture. I've shown them reprinting material from a clearly unreliable publisher, for what it matters. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. My best reading of Catholic Culture is that it's like New Advent inasmuch as it's a reliable republisher but additional considerations apply for original works. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The Catholic Herald seems to be a fringe publication which publishes the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Milo Yiannopoulos, am I missing something here? None of these appear to be top tier WP:RS and a good number of them appear to be unambiguously bad sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

To say "a fringe publication which publishes the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg..." Is just silly - like him or not Rees-Mogg is a senior politician and minister who I'd imagine has had articles in all the English nationals (except perhaps the Guardian, but that's their "fringe" position). Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Now do Milo Yiannopoulos. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

No thanks - don't know as much about him - he's not on the BBC the whole time, "fringe" broadcaster that they are. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

No worries, I'l give you a minute to read his wikipedia page. Also RE BBC you understand the difference between a guest and a contributor, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Were you planning to mention that you'd been canvassed[13] to this conversation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you consider Business Insider to be a fringe publication? It takes more than publishing opinion columns by one person to land one's publication in cuckoo land. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this a trick question? Business Insider is not a recognized WP:RS, check WP:RSP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I am asking you whether or not you consider Milo Yiannopoulos to be indicative of the editorial position of Business Insider on the basis that they allowed him to publish a column. Do you genuinely believe that Business Insider has the same political leanings as Milo? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

We aren't talking about editorial position, we're talking about reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah. I thought you were referring to the use of "fringe" in WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE to argue that the source ought be afforded little weight for reasons extraneous to reliability. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Fringe in the WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE is about reliability. How can one make a fringe argument that is extraneous to reliability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• This is an RS, but to be treated sensibly. It is a conservative-leaning Catholic site, which makes its position clear at the "About us" page. Opinion pieces reflect this house stance, just like those in the New York Times or The Guardian. It carries extensive texts and documents, such as the official (American English) translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. No doubt most of these can be obtained elsewhere, even online, but I don't see why this site can't used. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

We generally don't use advocacy sites because they don't separate news and opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not an RS. It's not even close. It's not scholarship. It's not journalism. I see no masthead, no professional journalists, no editors, no fact-checking, no ethics policy, no separation of news and opinion... this is not an RS, it's just an advocacy website, and it says so on its about us page. I don't even see any news that they actually publish... it seems to be entirely commentary and reprints? Levivich (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It's got leadership listed on its website, and the person listed as an editor of CWN is a career journalist who has served at numerous publications. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure when you phrase it like that it sounds nice. But it doesn't sound as great as naming those "numerous publications" which are Crisis Magazine, The Pilot (Massachusetts newspaper), Catholic World Report, and Catholic World News. Those are all kissing cousins, he appears to have no mainstream media experience. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason to consider Catholic Culture reliable? Their about page suggests that they are an advocacy organisation. In cases where they are simply re-hosting things which have been previously published in an unquestionably reliable venue, simply cite the reliable source. In the case of the Modern Catholic Dictionary specifically, their dictionary says that it is based on Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, ([14]) – it is specifically not claiming to be a faithful reproduction of the Dictionary! Their news section appears to largely consist of excerpts from other sources, in which case we should reference those other sources. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public: despite the "Based", the Dictionary on CC appears (I have not checked all 5000 entries) to reproduce word-for-word the original printed material. Veverve (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have the original printed material then there is no reason to use CC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

An electronic version is better (ability to ctrl+F, to change the police's size, etc.). But this is off-topic. The Dictionary was used as an example of how faithful the reproductions on CC are, and that therefore those that are hosted on the website can be trusted. Veverve (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

How can it be an example of that if you haven't actually checked whether it is or isn't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

There's a whole article that's available at Sampling (statistics) if you'd like to learn more about how random sampling works. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Zero is still zero no matter how big the dataset is. Veverve doesn't have access to a reliable copy of the source, they haven't actually compared a single entry against that entry in the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The about us page of Catholic Culture gives no indication it's a reliable source. I agree with Levivich that it appears to be an advocacy group, and that if a reliable source exists use that instead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Concur with the several editors above who find this source dubious. What reason is there to rely on this, what information is unique to it that can't be found on a clear RS? —DIYeditor (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: as I wrote, some of the works previously published that the website hosts cannot be found anywhere else online. And the website also hosts the Catholic World News. Veverve (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

If the material is available in print why not use the print version? If you use a digital version for searching and cross referencing that is up to you, but I think it should be cited to something published by a reputable publisher. Which brings up another question, are the three works you cited themselves RSs on Wikipedia? The first is a dictionary, a tertiary source, correct? And published by whom? The second is published by someone (Fidelity Press) who features on their website a "Culture Wars" magazine the title of the January issue being The Jewish Racket Known as the Right-to-Life Movement. This seems like a rabbit hole I'm quickly losing interest in descending through. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone can go to a US library to read a paper from a 1950s or 1990s journal on theology, hence why having online editions is helpful. CC for example contains articles from the Homiletic and Pastoral Review.

The Dictionary is reliable: the book was published by Doubleday (publisher), and is written by Catholic theologian John Hardon who taught at university.

As for the editorial line of Fidelity press in December 1994 (the date the second article is from, almost 30 years ago), I do not know about it. Veverve (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hometic and Pastoral Review is an Ignatius Press publication not a Trinity publication. Not the first time you've made that mistake in this convo[15]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it does host papers from the Hometic and Pastoral Review, the which is published by Ignatius Press, e.g. [16]. Veverve (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Why would we use Catholic Culture if we can just cite the actual article in the Hometic and Pastoral Review? I can make a blog and host a lot of reliable sources there, that doesn't make my blog a reliable source. Lets also be clear, Fidelity Press is not a WP:RS, you weren't asked about their editorial line you were asked about their reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Now that I think about it: since when is a publication's reliability juged by its 'About us' page? Not all newspaper have to state their hierarchy, the identity of their editor-in-chief, the fact that that they fact-check things (the latter is supposed to be done by all), etc., in such a page; I mean, the About us of the Guardian says nothing of this. Veverve (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  Possibly getting into Whataboutism and WP:OTHERCONTENT territory. If you want to challenge The Guardian that is a separate discussion - and is a discussion that can be had about any source at all. Your source has been challenged, what can you provide as evidence for it qualifying as a WP:RS? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think Veverve is saying that the notion that the "about us" page does not describe their own editorial hierarchy is of limited value, not making an argument against the reliability of The Guardian. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sources are not judged by the aboutus page, but they can be useful in seeing how a source sees itself. For instance the Guardian positions itself as a organisation that delivers investigative journalism, now obviously we shouldn't take a sources word as written but it gives an indication of what to expect. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment this discussion is another flawed one from HEB. They often hit the nail on the head in recognizing unreliability (like with OrthodoxWiki) but have mischaracterized CNA's reporting standards and association with EWTN. I say we just move on and recognize instances where inline attribution is necessary (for example, on the Crisis pregnancy center article). ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Were you planning to mention that you were canvassed[17] to this conversation by the OP? Also we don't appear to use Catholic Culture at Crisis pregnancy center, what am I missing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure a frequent user of a noticeboard who chimes in on a conversation moved off that noticeboard should be characterized as "canvassed", but then again some policies are just not worth remembering when trying to make a point. My comment was exclusively in response to your statement CNA is not a WP:RS (its an EWTN product, nothing EWTN touches is reliable), a bizarre mischaracterization that arouses concern regarding your judgement in this case. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

But that's not what happened, you were pinged by the OP [18]. You are Pbritti are you not? What is the mischaracterization? CNA is 100% owned and operated by EWTN, no? EWTN is a fringe advocacy organization, correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why OP persistently pings when I've noted to them previously that the noticeboard is on my watchlist and is a priority for me. Look at my record on that noticeboard, if you'd like; I actually ended up here because of my watchlist, noticing the ping after the fact. Your claims regarding the journalistic quality of CNA is frankly absurd and it doesn't take long to find instances where their reporting is accepted unchallenged by consensus-agreed reliable sources such as AP, NBC, NYT. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

OP pings you because they're canvassing people they believe will be sympathetic to their position (note that 2/3 supporters for their position here were pinged by them). So you don't dispute that EWTN is a fringe advocacy organization and that EWTN is the owner and operator of CNA you just say that despite that CNA is reliable because its been used by others? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry that frequent contributors in a subject area have looked into your claims and have disagreed with some of your statements. I am disappoint the OP pinged people on the noticeboard; that's behavior they've been chastised for before. For what it's worth, Austronesier's position on CC is mine. Your spiteful and poorly-supported claims have proved a deficient on this noticeboard in the past year; please reflect on your approach towards editors and this noticeboard and reconsider your understanding of what constitutes reliable sourcing according to policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The community has repeatedly accepted those "spiteful and poorly-supported claims," if you can't contribute in a subject area impartially I suggest that you don't contribute in it at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

What you've said in this conversation about EWTN and CNA suggests that you're not exactly impartial here! I wasn't pinged to this conversation and I suggest with others that Catholic Culture is reliable for reproduction of things published elsewhere. Jahaza (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

What about my comment suggests that I'm not an impartial when it comes to discussions of reliability? I've participated in hundreds of them across dozens of topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• This site doesn't seem to be particularly problematic, I can see that attribution could be necessary quite frequently as it (like every other non-academic source) is biased. Horse Eye's Back is there some particularly factually inaccurate material on the site that you have not noticed, or are you concerned that is used for notability? Boynamedsue (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: what on the site do you think could be used with attribution? Their news reporting is just re-prints of other sources and the people who write their commentaries aren't in general subject matter experts. The "factual" content they do publish is unusable, going alphabetically we find Abortion... The first line of abortion is "Abortion is the greatest single scourge of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, claiming far more innocent lives than any other threat, including war, poverty, starvation and natural disasters." are you suggesting that we can add that to Abortion as long as we attribute it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't add that, but it would due to WP:UNDUE rather than reliability concerns. That is clearly opinion, and there are far more prominent sources for Catholic perspectives on the topic where they would be relevant. The news stories do contain original content, though much of it is attached to an original story taken from elsewhere. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It isn't presented as opinion, its clearly presented as factual information and that's the problem. The same with the miracles, they're presenting WP:FRINGE as fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Most media outlets mix fact and opinion without explicitly labelling content as opinion, I can point you to dozens of articles in the Times, Guardian or Telegraph which do the same. Often they do it in a much more deceptive way. The language here is clearly that of opinion, and as such would need attribution. It is not trying to pass this opinion off as fact, but as moral truth. As such, it presents no problem for us, it can easily be distinguished from factual claims. --Boynamedsue (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Factual claims like what? What are you finding on this site? I found that they reprint material from the most reprehensible of publishers as I outlined above if you've read the discussion. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're ignoring their claims about miracles? Also just FYI that isn't a "moral truth" its a historical claim which is presented as factual. It isn't presented as a subjective opinion, it is presented as an objective fact. For example: "As a willful attack on unborn human life, no matter what the motive, direct abortion is always a grave objective evil." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I've not seen the claims they make about miracles, I only just noticed your mention of it. What do they say about them? I would say that claims made about the supernatural by people belonging to mainstream religions do not disqualify those sources on other matters. A Christian, Buddhist, Jew or Muslim by definition believes things we should not report as fact, but they are not disqualified as reliable sources. :::::::As for the second point...Do you seriously claim that stating a debatable opinion without explicitly declaring it to be opinion disqualifies a source? We would have next to nothing to base our articles on if that were the case. A writer is allowed to forcefully state what they see to be a true argument, this is not factual inaccuracy. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

They say that miracles are real and not in the sense that Catholics *believe* them to be real but that they are factual events which actually occurred. Reliable sources do not mix factual reporting with personal religious views. Mixing the two does in fact disqualify the source. If you compare NYT articles by Christian, Muslim, Atheist, and Jewish writers you aren't going to find any substantial differences in how they report facts. Its not opinion, they clearly declare it to be the objective truth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

You'll find support for private revelation in plenty of peer-reviewed theological journals too, so I don't know what to tell you. Graham (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That WP:FRINGE is already a content guideline so we don't have to do anything? Plenty of theological journals which aren't WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to ones which do meet WP:RS. These would include refereed journals published by scholarly presses such as Cambridge University Press, SAGE, or the like.

And I would encourage you to read WP:FRINGE's discussion of handling theological claims (in the third paragraph of WP:EVALFRINGE), which begins, "Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis [emphasis in original]." Graham (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing that they be treated exclusively as scientific theory, people are saying that they should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis. Pardon my ignorance but what scientific phenomena does private revelation make a claim concerning? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

In terms of an example of the kind that a conservative Roman Catholic website like Catholic Culture would conceivably discuss, I would point to Our Lady of Fátima as an alleged apparition that many would dismiss as a scientific impossibility. Graham (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The problematic ones are generally the healing miracles "He spat in my eye and now I don't have cancer!" and such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Only reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF. They have a mission, and their mission is not comparable to scholarly or encyclopedic information. Original material may be citeable as WP:OPINION with due weight (e.g. when secondary reliable sources mention it). All reproduced material however (if coming from reliable sources) should be cited from the original. The URL can be added but should be flagged as a reproduction. I think we can trust that the material is reproduced faithfully without editorial distortions. Or are there any indications that we can't? –Austronesier (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with Austronesier… OK to use in ABOUTSELF and attributed opinion situations… but not for verification of non-ABOUTSELF facts. CAN be used as a “courtesy link” for text of reproduced documents, but cite the original (and note in the citation that the link is a reproduction of that original). Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with @Austronesier: that this source is basically only going to be useful for ABOUTSELF, but even then I would be suspicious and find a better source. As an aside, I think @Horse Eye's Back: should be commended for the scrutiny he's applying. We need a lot more of that. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Red-tailed hawk that, with respect to works that are being republished on Catholic Culture, I think we can assume that they are being faithfully (no pun intended) reproduced, absent evidence to the contrary. Each of those sources would have to be evaluated on their own merits; we can't assume them to be unreliable simply because they are republished on Catholic Culture. It's always preferable to cite the source directly where we can, but where the original source isn't conveniently accessible, I see no problem with Catholic Culture being put in the via field of the citation template to comply with WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. This is distinct from the question of whether their original works are reliable, however. Graham (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Cleveland.com reliability?

Is this site considered reliable when it comes to sourcing a DOB for an actor/actress or does it fall under the WP:DOB part of WP:BLP policy? I'm wondering because I saw it used as a source for an actresses' DOB and I notice everyday it puts out a list of actors that were born on that day as well as their age. However some of those actors and actresses have never publicity disclosed their DOB and sites that do have them listed are on unreliable ones like IMDB, Google or other wikis. As well as sites that likely got that info from the aforementioned ones. Kcj5062 (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It would depend on the actual article. Cleveland.com is affiliated with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, but even reliable newspapers may print syndicated content, paid content (e.g. obituaries, press releases), or advertising that is not subject to much editorial oversight. Many newspapers print a daily "today's birthdays" and/or "this day in history" column, which could be scraped from any of various biographical sources (including IMDB and other public sites). If a birthdate is widely printed in such syndicated lists, than the subject is probably already well above borderline notability (i.e. a celebrity, not a low profile figure per WP:DOB). If Cleveland.com is the only credible or semi-credible source attesting to someone's birthdate, and it seems like a bit of page filler scraped from IMDB, then it may not be worth including (even if it is in fact correct). --Animalparty! (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Cleveland.com is an Advance Publications company. How do we evaluate other Advance properties? They put out Oregonlive (The Oregonian, Portland, OR), Pennlive (Patriot-News, Harrisburg, PA) and assorted others. The local media section at List of Advance subsidiaries would be where to look. They all share practices and resources, so I don't see a huge reason to expect any of them to differ in quality. Whether that quality is good or bad is another question. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Advance Publications that are focused on state-level reporting and local reporting (like the Staten Island Advance, The Star-Ledger, The Oregonian, etc.) are reliable WP:NEWSORGs that are typically on-par with or better than their various competitor Gannett publications. They're subject to the same limitations of other state and regional newspapers (the obituaries published in the deaths sections and marriage notices are self-published), but they are generally highly reputable are among the stronger statewide and regional publications in the United States.

More broadly, I'm not sure that all publications owned by Advance publications should be treated the same; La Cucina Italiana (owned through subsidiary Condé Nast) is not exactly comparable to The New Yorker (which Advance Publications also owns through subsidiary Condé Nast). But the state and regional publications all seem to have the a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a scenario similar to various local papers that are linked to USA Today (to the point of using a similar format) due to ownership through Gannett, but which I would be wary of some of their content. Masem (t) 03:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

In terms of Gannett's weekly community newspapers, sure, but that's more the general limitation of a community newspaper than a particular ownership-related problem. Most (if not all) of the Advance Publications regional/statewide publications have robust editorial structure and cover a considerably larger area than those sorts of entities. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I just saw this[19] happen at Alice Walker and I'm worried we've got a WP:circular issue here... I suspect that Cleveland.com is using wikipedia to make these lists. I would not consider lists of celebrity birthdays to be the same sort of thing as real reporting... Its online content fluff that was probably created by an intern and fact checked by no one. That opinion is not limited to Cleveland.com, applies to a wide range of publications which publish online content fluff in addition to real reporting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Cleveland.com is pretty obviously using the weekly list of celebrity birthdays that moves on the AP newswire[20] and the accompanying photos that move on the AP photo wire to make those slideshows. Jahaza (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

StreetLib

Isn't https://www.streetlib.com/ a self-publisher WP:SPS [21] (also see this)? Asking from Template:Did you know nominations/Religious significance of rice in India for a book:

• Kumar, Prassanjeet (2015). The Ultimate Guide to Cooking Rice the Indian way. StreetLib. p. 11.

Thanks — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This seems no different than Lulu or other such publishers, and definitely should be considered self published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with ActivelyDisinterested – this is obviously a platform for self-publishing, not a traditional publisher. They don't even seem to claim to be a publisher: according to their homepage they "provide a worldwide digital distribution platform", and it seems as though anyone can sign up for an account and upload their works without any editorial controls. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, StreetLib is obviously a self-publishing service so that just leaves us with only one scenario where the book could have a case to be considered useful in any capacity, that is if the author were to be a subject-matter expert. But going by his Amazon.com profile this isn't so either, he appears to be a law graduate who just has a wide variety of self published books, even has a self publishing guide series. So yeah, the book can't be used as a source. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

More on the reliability of BtVA

The Anime and Manga Wikiproject does not consider Behind the Voice Actors to be a reliable source. Can the perennial sources list stop calling it reliable now? Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the discussion where the reliability was discussed? The most recent such discussion here, From March, 2022 concluded that it was reliable. While such discussions don't have to happen here; they need to happen somewhere and if there is a new consensus, we all need to see what discussion came to a new consensus. --Jayron32 15:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, the discussion is in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources/Archive 1 and consists of two users. It's from more then a decade ago and as mentioned has only two participants, including the person who asked if it's a RS. --(loopback) ping/whereis 16:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and also per WP:TIMETRAVELISN'TPOSSIBLEASFARASWEKNOW, an older discussion in a less-broadly-attended corner of Wikipedia cannot override an existing consensus which was established later. If Eldomtom2 wants to start a new discussion over the reliability of the website in question, they can feel free to do so, but unless and until someone does that, it appears the March 2022 discussion is the prevailing one.--Jayron32 16:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The second one is a red link. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a blue link if you're browsing from before 2015. After The Fracture happened and Dr. Nixon broke the timeline with her first trip we deleted it. When there's a timeline collision we sometimes get people from 2008 linking to it when we try to warn them about the snakes. --(loopback) ping/whereis 21:26, 2 February 2037 (UTC)

Don't tell people about the snakes. It destabilizes the time loop and every time it happens we have to revdel the entire 2040s. jp×g 10:54, 9 April 2051 (UTC)

It won't be if you go back in time and fix it. --Jayron32 13:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I have made multiple attempts at starting discussions here and they have failed to receive attention.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that there was a well attended RfC for it here less then a year ago. It seems the community here largely doesn't feel like it needs to be reopened at this time. Is there something that's changed about the source in the last year, or do you just disagree with the conclusion? Because the former may catch more discussion but the latter is likely to elicit crickets if editors don't feel anything is substantially different to when we did this before. --(loopback) ping/whereis 06:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the conclusion. It was waved through with little investigation.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are we looking at the same RfC? I would like to draw your attention specifically to Compassionate727's fairly exhaustive dive into their structure and editorial methods. That is exactly the the type of examination we expect around here, and it did seem to hold quite a bit of weight with participants. If you were talking about a different RfC that's understandable, but if you meant the March 2022 one and think there was 'little investigation' then I don't think you are quite on the level. --(loopback) ping/whereis 06:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think it was an "exhaustive dive" you can think that, but I don't think "they say they have some sort of standards (that they won't clarify) that they apply to user submissions" is good enough to say something is a reliable source.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Allsides.com redux, use of Breitbart and Wikipediocracy as a source

This[22] Allsides blog post uses Wikipediocracy[23] as a source in an article by someone named simply "sashi" as well as another article there[24] by someone named Exotic Beat. The Breitbart article is described as being about "American academics" whose reports are already mentioned in the blog and is by T.A.Adler ie the banned "The Devil's Advocate" Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Devil's Advocate/Archive Doug Weller talk 12:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Is any of this being cited on Wikipedia? If so, where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

No idea, I'm raising it as it pertains to the reliability of Allsides. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The current consensus cited at WP:ALLSIDES states "There is general consensus that reliability varies among the website's articles and should be determined on a case-by-case basis". These seem to be among the cases where one wouldn't use the articles in question, and does not really affect articles from the website which are reliable. --Jayron32 13:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

On one hand, does this matter? As a rule we don't cite Allsides for factual claims about sources. Per RS, I can't think of many ways this blog entry could be used as a reference in Wikipedia and I presume it isn't being used. On the other hand, the content and concerns of the blog entry look well reasoned. As this isn't something to cite I'm more interested in the quality of the arguments and evidence rather than the RS usability. A forum post by a random user might isn't citable here but that doesn't mean it doesn't contain strong, well reasoned arguments. I think the concern is legitimate. Many of the concerns they raised align with things I've seen around wikipedia. That isn't to say the people involved aren't acting in good faith or with the intent to build a better Wikipedia (I the vast majority do want to make things better). However, I also think we collectively have inherent biases that, over time, tend to push Wikipedia to the left as the blog entry suggests. I don't have a good suggestion for fixing the problem to the extent that it exists. I feel like Wikipedia's processes are a bit like democracy. It's not a great system but the others are worse. Absent a "benevolent dictator editor" to provide oversite I'm not sure there is much else we can do other than awareness even if we all accept this blog as 100% true (and I'm sure that isn't the case). Springee (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m confused. Surely we cite it for political positions? Doug Weller talk 15:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Do we? (honest question) I assumed we don't cite Allsides, AdFontes, MBFC for claims in articles in general. I always assumed if we are going to say [New site] is left/right we would cite other RSs, not Allsides et al. Springee (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This is an example where I removed it.Special:Diff/1135460071. The consensus on the talk page was not to reinstate it, see [[Talk:Vox (website)#Allsides.com] Doug Weller talk 16:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I would support that removal. Springee (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I would expect from you. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Allside isn't reliable, certainly not for a statement like that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Why? Allsides isn't a RS for political affiliation, its a RS for its own opinions but not for facts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Political affiliation is pretty much always opinion. The composition of the soil of the moon, the order of battle from Waterloo, the laws passed by a particular Parliament, these are facts. Whether or not a particular person or organization or whatnot should be classified as "left wing" or "right wing" is only ever opinion. It's not a falsifiable fact in the way that, say, water boils at 100 degrees C at 1 bar is, or that Henry VIII married 6 women is. --Jayron32 18:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That last one is also an opinion, its not falsifiable in the way that, say, water boils at 100 degrees C at 1 bar is because it can't be tested. History as a field is pretty much entirely opinion based, which is why we rely on subject matter experts (you know, the kind who don't work at Allsides). TLDR Allsides is reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF and that's it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action", as Ian Fleming put it. Allsides' stumbling into citing some rather bad actors is concerning, so it will bear watching as they continue. For now, IMO the case-by-case criteria is still the proper guidance. ValarianB (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

On the one hand, yes, we need to look out for patterns of problems. On the other hand, we need to not get caught in the trap of setting hard limits like "If a source publishes three wrong things, we deprecate them". Even the BBC has gotten 3 things wrong in history. They're still a good source. --Jayron32 14:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh I agree, Mr. Ian wasn't to be taken so literally. But at some point editors here looked at the once-reliable Newsweek, saw the decline in 2013 and went "hmm, we need to talk abut this." Thus WP:NEWSWEEK and the 2013+ criteria. ValarianB (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

What is the problem here? As a blog posting how is this different than an opinion article published by the site? Is there something published here that is grossly wrong or so off base that it should ring alarm bells? Both the conclusions and the general evidence seem within the scope of reasonable. I had always assumed we would treat AllSides like we treat other source rating sites (potentially useful on talk pages but would only be cited in an article in very limited/special cases). If the RSP rating was up for review I can't see how this blog posting would impact the overall rating. Springee (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

'This source cites someone we've banned from Wikipedia' isn't even remotely an appropriate consideration when assessing reliability. We are looking for "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" in the broader public sphere, not on WP:ANI... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

What Andy said. I hadn't mentioned it, but yeah. "I found a wrong thing, the source must be bad" is never shouldn't be the driver of these discussions. "This analysis by a reliable source has found that the source isn't reliable" is where we should focus on these discussions. Even the downgrading of post 2013 Newsweek was based on the fact that reliable sources that analyze media reliability had noted that the change in management at Newsweek was coincident with a loss of reputation for Newsweek's reliability. It wasn't "Some Wikipedia editors found some factual errors". It was "Reliable sources that look at this stuff noted a problem". --Jayron32 15:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That article cites larrysanger.org, foxnews.com, semanticscholar.org, wikipediocracy.com, breitbart.com, conservapedia.com, wikipedia.org, bbs.edu, dailysignal.com, holodomort.com, britannica.com, investopedia.com, newworldencyclopedia.org, historycollection.com, journals.sagepub.com -- but Doug Weller only picks out two and claims their use pertains to the reliability of allsides. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "links to" is the same thing as "cites". The link to Semanticscholar is this link, but that's a portal that links to a working paper that was published by the Harvard Business School. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t realise I was required to, I assumed people would see the links. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say required. I was thinking that an appropriate page would be Ideological bias on Wikipedia but I see an allsides.com article was already brought to the talk page, I guess support was insufficient. Looking at the page history indicates that there have been attempts to use some of the sources that allsides.com cited.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

To echo AndyTheGrump, merely that someone is banned from Wikipedia does not mean that they (1) lack insight into how the project operates or (2) were blocked for incompetence. We regularly block people for harassment, edit warring, and other lacks of compliance with civility norms—as a collaborative encyclopedia should—but writing off the content produced by an individual on the basis that they have a history of bad conduct is an ad hominem attack rather than something that substantially refutes the arguments they are making. We routinely ban people for behavioral issues that have nothing to do with how competent they are as a writer. For example, we've banned SMEs because of edit warring, and harassment, but that doesn't suddenly make them stop being SMEs.

As for whether TDA is an SME on this, I have no idea why we would consider him one any more than any other involved Wikipedian, but it doesn't actually matter for analyzing the reliability of AllSides' review of Wikipedia's political leanings. Folks who actually are to read the Breitbart source will very quickly note the analysis regarding arbitration enforcement was performed by writers for The Critic, not by TDA for Breitbart. Should AllSides have directly linked to The Critic rather than to Breitbart? Perhaps, but that's hardly the sort of thing that impacts the reliability of a source. Pointing at Breitbart being deprecated and TDA being banned as evidence of unreliability is a distraction given the underlying analysis was performed by a non-Breitbart, non-TDA source. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

What's the difference? Breitbart and The Critic have about the same reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Part of the difference is plainly that the study wasn't written by TDA, so analysis regarding TDA's behavior or creds as an SME are wholly irrelevant. The other part is that what it's writing, when read in the context of the whole piece, is a summary regarding claims of bias without endorsing specific claims. AllSides correctly notes that People typically point to five studies that have found evidence of Wikipedia’s left-wing bias, and then introduces the list of the studies with We lay out a summary of the claims of Wikipedia’s left-wing bias below. It proceeds to accurately represent each of what the five pieces says about Wikipedia, moves onto Sanger's claims (which it represents accurately), moves onto Stossel's criticism, then moves to whitewashing of Communism, etc., but the vast majority of the piece is a summary about what people have written about Wikipedia, with very little claims of fact in its own editorial voice. When AllSides does speak with its own voice, it's either saying things that are verifiably true (even though there may good editorial reasons for doing so, we do indeed label The Daily Caller as unreliable and list failed fact-checks while not mentioning that the NYT incorrectly reported that a January 6 rioter bludgeoned a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher), or it's a candid admission that Determining the bias of an entire encyclopedia is tricky for us at AllSides, as we are better equipped to determine the bias of news outlets. (Wow! A source that admits its limitations! We might be much better off if other media analysis sources were to follow suit.) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The question is what difference does the use of Breitbart instead of The Critic make. Neither is reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As a source for... the fact that a report published in The Critic made a particular claim? I'd say The Critic is pretty reliable as a primary source for its own writings. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

We're talking about using it as a source for the underlying analysis, as you put it before "Pointing at Breitbart being deprecated and TDA being banned as evidence of unreliability is a distraction given the underlying analysis was performed by a non-Breitbart, non-TDA source." Are you now saying that discussing the reliability of the source which performed the underlying analysis is also a distraction? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Allsides.com isn't used in any articles other than the article about AllSides (unless my linksearch use is off). That indicates it probably doesn't need a long discussion about specific entries. It does highlight that the summary at RSP doesn't seem right. If there's consensus to evaluate it on a case by case basis, but there's consensus against using it in every case that's come up, the RSP guidance isn't terribly useful and should be updated. Like Springee, I'm under the impression, that allsides, mbfc, and ad fontes are all generally avoided in mainspace, even if we might use them from time to time on talk pages. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, then this is a lot of discussion about nothing then, isn't it? If no Wikipedia article can be found even using the source, what's the point of having the discussion. Idle chit-chat about how much we like a website isn't exactly useful for the encyclopedia. If no one can bring forth an actual use of the source under dispute, what's the point? --Jayron32 18:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I think what Rhododendrites has discovered and the point they’ve made makes this discussion worthwhile. The RSP guidance needs updating. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The RSP guidance would need updating if we had a discussion that came to the consensus that it needed updating. We haven't had that discussion yet. Indeed, I above have stated that the current guidance is sufficient. --Jayron32 19:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You’re right. I’m shocked. I used to see it a lot. It does look like it’s been removed from a number of articles. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Use of Predatory journals

On Boole's rule, there is one source that ostensibly belongs to a predatory journal: Ubale (2012) at revision 1137251261. User:Headbomb has removed it. My reading of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Predatory journals is that the main concern is the lack of proper peer review and thus articles can be considered WP:SELFPUB. As I explained at Talk:Boole's rule#Ubale source, here, the source is being brought to support a mathematical identity which can be checked by anyone with pencil, paper, and algebra. As such, I believe the source should be acceptable under the circumstances. I am seeking consensus as to whether my interpretation is acceptable under the circumstances. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Your interpretation is wrong. What would matter there is not whether it can be checked by anyone but whether or not the author is a subject matter expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

"which can be checked by anyone with pencil, paper, and algebra" then it should be trivially easy to find a source that supports it that isn't a garbage journal. If none can be found, then WP:DUE likely applies and that section should be cut. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I can write it up and post it on ArXiv, but that would be a WP:SELFPUB problem too. The statement is mathematically correct and is helpful to people reading the article. I just have not found any other source than Ubale, probably because it is so trivial. -- Avi (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

"I can write it up and post it on ArXiv" and it would be equally unacceptable as a source. If Ubale is the only person to have written about this in a garbage journal, then it's WP:UNDUE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that it is UNDUE in that it is very useful to people using Boole's rule on irregular-spaced intervals. As Wikipedia is often people's first search point, having the proper and accurate algorithm on the page is valuable. This is not a "viewpoint". This is a mathematical fact which has no COI or POV. It is a convenience for our readers. -- Avi (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I we be able to keep the information in the article per WP:CALC if I or someone else demonstrates the correctness on talk or in a footnote, dispensing with the need for Ubale yet not leaving it unsourced. -- Avi (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not WP:CALC stuff, and WP:UNDUE/WP:OR certainly applies. If no one wrote anything on Boole's rules on irregular intervals, it's simply not something of interest. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, people did write on the irregular interval method. Unfortunately, it is in an article we can not use. Secondly, please justify why you believe this is not an example of WP:CALC which would ameliorate the WP:OR issue. WP:CALC states "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.…Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote.". If it can be shown through simple algebra and arithmetic, that would be "routine". We don't need partial differential equations or tensors. Of course, this latter is no longer a WP:RS issue but a WP:OR and may need to be discussed elsewhere. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"People did write on the irregular interval method. Unfortunately, it is in an article we can not use." Exactly. Find an article we can use, and then you'll have a point. A predatory journal is not a valid source, and doesn't count as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to have more than two people opine, but you and HEB agree. Using WP:CALC, however, dispenses with the need for an external source, if the statement is sufficiently simple. You're a physicist, you must have some idea of which mathematical operations you consider simple and which you consider advanced. I'm a statistician, I have similar opinions. If all that is being done is arithmetic on series terms which are them grouped by index modulo 4, I cannot conceive of that being considered complicated, in which case, describing the method in a footnote or on talk is legal and not OR any more than 2+3=5 is OR. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It appears to me that the composite Boole's rule, as stated in the article, only evaluates the integral at certain selected points, and therefore must be an approximation. But unlike the simple Boole's rule, there is no error term on the right hand side of the equation. So I do not believe it. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Boole's rules—regardless of implementation—estimate the function at specific points and all share the same error term. That is a feature of all Newton-Coates rules. Perhaps the article should make it clearer. -- Avi (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This is now moot, as I have found an acceptable journal source although its access is more restricted. -- Avi (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Diwali article - Biomedical claims with unreliable sources

In the Diwali article, there is a section regarding air pollution that contains many biomedical claims. These claims do not have sources that meet the WP:MEDRS policy. Additionally, these sources do not actually contain the information or claims that have been put into the article. Examples of such biomedical claims and their sources are below:

1. "Getting exposed to harmful chemicals while firing crackers can hinder growth in people and increases the toxic levels in their bodies" - link to source: https://www.timesnownews.com/mirror-now/in-focus/article/delhis-air-quality-turns-toxic-on-diwali-aqi-docks-at/829295

2. "When these compounds pollute the air, they increase the risk of cancer in people" - link to source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/diyas-symbolise-diwali-crackers-cause-pollution-delhi-environment-minister-101635359379184.html

3. "The air and noise pollution that is caused by firecrackers can affect people with disorders related to the heart, respiratory and nervous system." - Link to source: https://www.news18.com/news/india/a-look-at-how-firecrackers-pollute-the-environment-and-carry-carcinogenic-agents-1916801.html

4. "The harmful fumes while firing crackers can lead to miscarriage." - link to source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/diyas-symbolise-diwali-crackers-cause-pollution-delhi-environment-minister-101635359379184.html

All of the above are biomedical claims with unreliable sources. I originally raised in the dispute resolution noticeboard but was redirected to the reliable sources noticeboard.

I believe the air pollution section should be removed, or at least content relating to biomedical claims. A discussion has taken place on the article's talk page. I have tried to suggest a compromise with a link to some alternative wording in a sandbox page but no outcome has been reached.

It may be beneficial for another opinion / another set of eyes.

In summary, many biomedical claims have been made with sources that not only do not meet WP:MEDRS, but do not contain any of the content put into the article. After discussions on the talk page and suggesting alternative wording, a solution has still not been reached.

Thanks for your time and help!

Starlights99 (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Going through these now. 1 doesn't state the claim being tied to it at all. It solely talks about air quality level. 2 does not say the things cited to it, and if it did would only be a good cite for the environment minister saying those things, not that they actually cause those things. 3 actually does cite sources, a 2007 study in Atmospheric Environment, which is a journal published by ScienceDirect, and releases by the Indian Chest Society. I'm not sure how we feel about those but it's at least moving in the right direction. 4 is the same as 2 and also does not state the claim cited to it. --(loopback) ping/whereis 13:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and it should be noted that none of these are MEDRS, you're absolutely right. 3 likely gives some breadcrumbs that may lead to a MEDRS if you poke around its sources and their coverage elsewhere though. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's a 2019 review: Air quality during and after festivals: Aerosol concentrations, composition and health effects and a 2016 review: A review of the impact of fireworks on particulate matter in ambient air if someone wants to bolster the media claims with MEDRS sources. There are also many dozens of primary research articles specifically on Diwali's impact on air quality/health that might provide secondary background information. JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@JoelleJay @127(point)0(point)0(point)1

Hi both,

Thanks for taking the time to review the claims. I agree, most of the sources definitely do not meet MEDRS. I feel the best thing would be to remove the direct medical claims from the article for the time being, and in time find some more primary sources.

Starlights99 (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

We would want secondary sources, like the reviews above. I think the media coverage is allowable for contextualizing the health claims as long as there's a MEDRS source to back things up. Especially since it informs on the reasoning behind the fireworks bans. JoelleJay (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @JoelleJay

Sorry - yes I meant peer reviewed / secondary sources - clearly hadn't had enough coffee! I agree, along as a MEDRS source is available to back up such claims.

Starlights99 (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC on sources of West Herzegovina Canton symbols

Are the following sources reliable sources to determine the constitutionality of the West Herzegovina Canton symbols? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

After discussion at the DRN, the discussion at Talk:West Herzegovina Canton § Flag concerning West Herzegovina Canton's coat of arms and flag (referred to as "the symbols" below) has been moved here. The arguments for and against the sources below are presented on the aforementioned pages. In summary, there were provisions in the canton's constitution defining the symbols that were deemed unconstitutional by the constitutional court in 1998. After that, the canton amended the constitution to remove said provisions in 2000 and passed laws that define and regulate the usage of the symbols in 2003. It might be helpful to note that this RfC was created from an archived discussion here at RSN with no discussion.

Answer Yes or No or the equivalent to each following question:

1. Are Livno-Online, Mayor of the local municipality, RTRS, Federalna RTV, and SrpskaInfo reliable sources to verify that the symbols are currently unconstitutional?
2. Is Interview with an "expert in the field of constitutional law" and "former judge of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia and president of the Constitutional Court of FBiH" (Avaz, June 2018) a reliable source to verify that the symbols are currently unconstitutional?
3. Is page 123 of this ombudsman report a reliable source to verify that the symbols are currently constitutional?
4. Is page 65 of this ombudsman report a reliable source to verify that the symbols are currently unconstitutional?
5. Is a page from a blog belonging to Željko Heimer, a claimed vexillology expert, a reliable source to verify that the symbols are currently constitutional?
6. Are the law on the usage of the symbols and the law defining the symbols reliable primary sources to verify that the symbols are currently constitutional?

Aaron Liu (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Given the acrimonious prior discussions on the issue, I hesitate to weigh in. I don't think that this discussion can or will resolve the dispute because I think that the question of the current constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the flag and symbol are not something resolvable here based on any of these sources. What I think that Wikipedia can report based on these sources is that there is a dispute over the constitutionality of the current official flag. As for the sources themselves, here is what I think:

-1 and 2. The sources cited in the first two questions: livno.online, centralnews.live, rtrs.tv, federalna.ba, srpksainfo.com and avaz.ba, all appear to be ordinary reliable news organizations that may be used to report news or what interview subjects said on a subject. So, these sources can certainly be used to report the fact of the court ruling and the statements of interview subjects like the delegate, the mayor or the the retired judge that they claim it is unconstitutional. That does not necessarily answer the question of whether or not the flag and symbol is currently constitutional or not - just that some prominent people believe that it is not.

-3 and 4. I have no idea whether this report is a reliable source or not. I can't read it. Sometimes publications of government agencies are reliable sources, sometimes not, sometimes primary, secondary or tertiary.

-5. It does appear that Mr. Heimer is a recognized subject matter expert on flags, is president of an international society on flags, is frequently cited in other sources, and has been previously published by an independent publisher of at least one book on the subject. (another book was self-published through Lulu) So he is a reliable source on flags and can be used as a reference that this is the "official" flag of the canton. He's clearly not an expert on constitutional jurisprudence of Bosnia-Herzegovinia; so whether or not the flag is "constitutional" or not is not something I would cite him for.

-6. The statute itself is a primary source, and should not be used as a source all by itself. But, coupled with Heimer, it can be cited to support that the flag and symbol are "official". it does not establish whether or not they are "constitutional" or not. Banks Irk (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Banks Irk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Banks Irk; @SMcCandlish Let's not get ahead of ourselves - as a self-published vexillology hobbyist, Željko Heimer shouldn't be used in any case other than issues concerning vexillology and only vexillology, but even that only when other editors have no objection(s) , after all, Heimer is electro-engineer whose hobby is vexillology, and who maintains, or is maintained, self-published vexillology blog. Even if he did published couple of books on vexillology, he (or his blog) shouldn't be used in describing issues involving, for instance, law(s) and symbols'/flags' legality and/or constitutionality, are they "official", as you put it under quotation marks, or not after being subject of constitutional court case(s), and whatever legal matters are discussed in article(s) concerning symbols. Even his own entry (on his website) regarding this issue is simple copy paste of couple of sentences (or one) that just repeats what we already know and discussed from other sources, and which he could picked up from source(s) of his choosing (for instance, from one you discussed here under 6. in above list, namely that same statute which is prim source and you said could be used in combination (WP:CIRCULAR !?) or Ombudsmen Report 3-4 in the list which you disregarded). Bottom line, he could be used only on issues involving appearance of flags and emblems (coa), or something innocuous like historical flag(s) design, and other matters of vexillology. As for (il)legality, we have far better source which confirms that symbols/flags are infect illegal, which is listed and linked under number 2 in above list of discussed sources. (Also, bear in mind, he's not exactly and completely neutral on this issue.) I am sorry that I am responding to this discussion of late (to say the least), but I was not pinged, and it concerns vis-a-vis dispute. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Lots of people are experts at something else besides their main job. If other sources cite this one as authoritative, we should probably trust them. Not sure what else we have to go on, really, for this kind of material/subject. Is there even any such thing as a professional vexillologist?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, good reasoning and good question. Nevertheless, he certainly is not the right place to look for an answer on legal and constitutional matters we are seeking in this particular issue. If he says that flag is green and its historically can be traced back in time, looked one way or the other, I would use him, but just because he cites as a source the same contentious statute that was ruled unconstitutional (and even he says so on his entry on the web page) by the highest authority in any country on the planet Earth, which Constitutional courts usually are, that does not mean we have found our strong source for solving (il)legality conundrum and freely stick obviously (to me) illegal symbols into Infobox. Interestingly enough, opposing editor(s) never accepted compromise, offered from the beginning, that image(s) of these symbols be included into article's body with an explanation of this entire situation. Bottom line is that if "expert in the field of constitutional law and former judge of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia and president of the Constitutional Court of FBiH" is not solid enough to deem symbols illegal, then one vexillologist is significantly less reliable to validate editor's claim that they are legal, especially if vexillologist himself did not draw any critical conclusions (to say the least). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Further, some extensive legal commentary in media was not brought into this conversation by initiator, which were mentioned in the same DRN tacno.net (2016), intelektualno.com (2019), Heinrich Böll Stiftung|Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (2021), balkans.aljazeera.net (2016) - these would fit 1.-2. in above list of sources. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

First of all, we have yet to address whether or not the "how constitutional should this be" of the flag matters on whether or not it is official and should be included in the infobox.

Secondly, I still don't see anything that claims that Heimer is purely a self-published hobbyist. I concur with Banks Irk on this matter, So he is a reliable source on flags and can be used as a reference that this is the "official" flag of the canton. He's clearly not an expert on constitutional jurisprudence of Bosnia-Herzegovinia; so whether or not the flag is "constitutional" or not is not something I would cite him for. And I don't see any objections that the officialness should be disregarded if "according to previous judgements, this should be unconstitutional, but it has not been judged unconstitutional yet" so it's still official.

Lastly, I have responded to these sources in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 225 § Thirteenth statements by editors (West Herzegovina). Onlookers may take a look. About the "compromise", that part has already been included in the body, and you later decided to oppose it since you disagreed with the wording. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that this is a real-world controversy that we report on in the article, and not use the symbol in the infobox, but include it near where it is dicussed in the article body.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

That compromise was offered first time back in 2009 I believe, and not one among editors who wanted it into Infobox ever accepted it or did anything about it - at the end I had to do that job for them, not knowing if they will remove it from the body or not (I included image of the flag into the body yesterday), while there is a short description of the issue, but even that could be expended. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The constitutionality of the symbol is under controversy but pretty much everyone agrees that it's official. Therefore I think it should be included in the infobox. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is back here at RSN. As you say, all of the reliable sources are in total agreement that these are the official flag and symbols. There are also reliable sources which report that various notable people argue that the adoption of the flag and symbols was unconstitutional based on a prior court ruling. The argument that they are unconstitutional, and their adoption was therefore illegal, however compelling, is not something we can say in Wikipedia's voice. We can only report that notable people hold that position.

Whether or not they should be included in the Infobox is not a question for RSN, but I will note that Nazi flags and symbols are included in numerous articles, notwithstanding that their display is explicitly illegal in numerous jurisdictions. Using them in those articles is appropriate because they are/were the flags and symbols of the Third Reich. It strikes me that this dispute is analogous. But, again, that is an issue for the article talk page, not here.Banks Irk (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

All RS say that the symbols are official - like which? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, the ombudsman? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not accurate (and I really starting to believe you are doing this vis-a-vis their report intentionally) - the only place to look in ombudsman report is where they explicitly voice their own opinion in chapter titled "our conclusion", to paraphrase long title, and in which they explicitly say it is illegal. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, legality isn’t in question as we’re talking about officiality here. There is no sufficient reason to discount page 65. The first paragraph on page 65 is written by the ombudsman and not a quotation so it can definitely be cited. It explicitly states that the official symbols are defined in these laws and provides picture references of the symbols. It is not a complete rehash of the law. On the other hand, the opinion part you cited that rules the symbols unconstitutional is a direct rehash of the 1998 ruling. Not only does it not deal with the current officiality of the symbols, it also is a direct quotation from the 1998 ruling.

@Banks Irk I’d like to see your opinion of the ombudsman, you can select the text and copy paste them into Google Translate. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Another point - you should argue your position on the symbols elsewhere. Maybe TP, or DRN? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Santasa99: Why??? Isn’t RSN the appropriate venue we agreed on at DRN? How is RSN any less valid than DRN or TP? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Because this venue, the RfC, is used to discuss if source is reliable, not if we should do in-article edits one way or the other. Last time around, you disruptively disregarded the fact that not only dispute at TP and DRB is unresolved, but you also used this RfC's first comment, made by @Banks Irk, as justification to add symbols at will. Unfortunately, Banks comment can be seen as implicit suggestion to do exactly that, but in that case, you should have asked all involved back at TP or in new DRN what to do with Banks comment before anyone proceed to edit infobox again. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

At the time of my implementation of the symbols, there was no active dispute, thus a DRN would be immediately closed as it doesn’t conform to the DRN rules. The 15th statement at DRN read it appears that this dispute is mostly about whether multiple sources are acceptable secondary sources or excluded primary sources. These questions can be better addressed at the reliable source noticeboard. So if the sources were resolved the symbols could be incorporated in the article. I admit that there was wrongdoing on my part on implementing the edit too early but there was consensus as no other opinion was given after one entire month. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Please, this is not the place. I restored this discussion to argue about the source(s) and give my view on previous comment(s). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place for what? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

And on Nazi flags - yeah, they are included, but entire circumstances and context is world apart from this situation - unlike breakaway republics or historical states and entities, this canton is part of the system of Bosnia and Herzegovina state. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK the only body that can decide if something is unconstitutional is the country's constitutional court, or other courts that are empowered with interpreting the constitution (also, laws are normally constitutional unless declared unconstitutional by competent judicial authorities). So everything else is a private opinion. You can indicate that some lawyers (incl. the Ombudsman) think that the regulation is unconstitutional but their opinion is not authoritative because they are not the ones who get to decide whether they are constitutional. Of course, if the government retires the symbol because of concerns about constitutionality, you can mention this but it says nothing about whether it is actually compliant. Not for RSN. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Santasa99's claim is that because the constitutional court ruled the symbols unconstitutional in the past, the ruling still applies after canton 8 circumvented the ruling by moving the symbols to a law, which they also somehow believe is supported by their supplied sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Citizen Science: Theory and Practice

Is Citizen Science: Theory and Practice (a journal published by Ubiquity Press on behalf of the Citizen Science Association) a reliable source? The article "Tracking Science: An Alternative for Those Excluded by Citizen Science" was used in Wikipedia's Science article to support the statement that the earliest archeological evidence for scientific reasoning is tens of thousands of years old, but Headbomb, Andrew Lancaster, and Artem.G have all challenged the reliability of this peer-reviewed journal.      — Freoh 20:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a journal of amateur ramblings and random citizen scientists ("Master Trackers" from some "CyberTracker" organization) and the article is a diatribe about how citizen science isn't woke enough. These are not professional historians of science that analyzed archeological findings. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Although I am sympathetic to some of the arguments advanced in the piece, I am in general agreement with Headbomb's assessment. This is more of a petition for redress of grievances as opposed to a scientific journal article. There must surely be far better sources available for dating the emergence of scientific reasoning. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

What makes you say that this journal is amateur? Its editorial board seems fairly professional to me.      — Freoh 11:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

How can you tell? - Roxy the dog 11:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The composition of the editorial board is a red herring. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb, you described the journal as amateur. The professionalism of the journal's editorial board directly contradicts your accusations.      — Freoh 20:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I said it was a journal of amateur ramblings. The editorial board's composition doesn't change that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Would it be possible to directly draw on the sources that paper cites (Johannes 1981, p. 5–9; Liebenberg 1990, 2013a; Rudgley 1999; Conner 2005; Fara 2009; Lombard and Gärdenfors 2017) instead?

Of course, The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

This is an interesting topic actually, and I would like to see what a broader array of WP:RS say about defining science and pinpointing its origins. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

As usual, to analyse this question you need to look at the text being proposed. Here is one version. This is a strong simple statement being placed at the top of the second sentence in the article for "Science". It is saying that "Science may be as old as the human species". I believe the concern of some editors is that this implies that what we now call science, modern science, is really just a continuation of something much older. So either this is a potentially controversial statement about a very big topic, or else the meaning of "science" is being used in a fuzzy way. Anyway, on this noticeboard we should discuss the source's appropriateness for this task. There might be other editing solutions, but they can best be discussed on the article talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb, why do you consider Marlize Lombard, Peter Carruthers, and Sven Ove Hansson to be amateur?      — Freoh 09:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You have a critical WP:IDHT problem. This is 3 people out of nearly 30, none of whom are lead authors. They're what seems to be signatories on a letter. See also my 22:30 6 February reply above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It is also irrelevant to the fact that the article is a rant against citizen science not being 'woke enough', not a serious analysis of archeological findings by professional historians of science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I hear you, I just don't agree with you. Marlize Lombard is an anthropologist, Peter Carruthers has written textbooks about the philosophy of psychology, and Sven Ove Hansson has been published in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Why don't you see them as serious? Also, I don't see how it's relevant that some of the authors are amateurs. That's how science works, a lot of the time: "amateur" graduate students publish in peer-reviewed journals with their advisors. I don't see how this is any different, and the article doesn't mention wokeness at all.      — Freoh 14:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of the authors aren't professional, and the lead authors aren't either. It is also an opinion piece on whether 'citizen science' is inclusive enough, not a serious analysis of archeological findings by professional historians of science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm arguing that it is a serious analysis of archeological findings by professional historians of science. You can't dismiss a peer-reviewed article by reputable experts just because it's the first publication for some of the authors.      — Freoh 16:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

But they are not "reputable experts", and there are no "archeological findings", just vague words! Just one person there is a historian of science, but that's cherry-picking. Artem.G (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources have only one author. Are you saying that the collaboration with Indigenous conservationists makes this article less reliable?      — Freoh 17:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not a journal article that reports the findings of research; it's a polemic. Or, in more positive terms, it's an opinion piece that invokes prior literature to try and support its case. Even as an opinion piece, it says that its definition of "tracking science" is based on the hypothesis that scientific reasoning is rooted in innate properties of the modern human mind (emphasis added). That's awfully weak sauce for supporting a strong statement. XOR'easter (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to these passages specifically:

The oldest direct evidence suggests that such integrated abstract thinking was already practiced in Africa more than 60,000 years ago ... forming the basis of modern science.

Our definition recognizes continuity from the origins of scientific reasoning with the evolution of modern Homo sapiens hunter-gatherers in Africa more than 100,000 years ago through to modern physics

The definition of tracking science describes, among other things, what Indigenous communities in Africa have been doing for more than 100,000 years

And sure, it's biased, but that doesn't make it unreliable.      — Freoh 20:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The point isn't that it's "biased", it's that it's an opinion column. Those very quotes make clear that they are defining a kind of science to include old practices that evidence suggests people followed tens of millennia ago. At most, this kind of writing could support an attributed opinion claim. It's not enough to justify our saying, in Wiki-voice, that those practices are the "roots of science" and that they do in fact have the pedigree suggested. For my own part, I am actually sympathetic to the Saganesque expansiveness of defining "science" broadly. As rhetoric, it appeals to me. For the purposes of an encyclopedia article, however, I find it much less suitable. XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

How about we check what scientific community has to say on this phenomenon? Just on first query, for instance, I found something like this. Surely it must be other opinions out there on CS reliability. (It seems, they are evaluated and considered on case-to-case basis, but that's just first impression of mine.)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

CS reliability isn't what's under question here. It's using this opinion piece by amateurs to establish that science is 20,000+ years old. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Chanda dynasty

How is this[] source? Karsan Chanda (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• The publisher is very shady. See Allied Academies which describes it as a potentially fraudulent predatory publisher. The journal's website states that authors must pay for whatever editorial review, if any, is done. This is clearly not reliable. Banks Irk (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Correction, with my apologies. I had mistakenly confused the Business Studies Journal of the University of Calcutta, from which this reference is taken, with the "Business Studies Journal" of Allied Academies. The University journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly publication and a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

How are its other sources? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• The other journal article is also by a predatory publisher. Authors pay for publication and there is no editorial or peer review. [25] The books are fine. Banks Irk (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk: Can it be used for historical claims? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

No. It's an article on tourism, not an article on history. The authors aren't historians, they work in the travel industry. Banks Irk (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Amber Fort

Is Alan Singh Chanda the correct name as the builder of Amber Fort? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Maybe, but that source has all the hallmarks of being a predatory journal, from advertising fake impact factors, to trivial inclusions in service like Google Scholar, and thus fails WP:RS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It is clearly a pay-for-play predatory journal with no peer review or editorial oversight, as I noted in the prior thread. Banks Irk (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk: this person its author? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

UGC Source

On the reference [26] at Joseph Lister It states on the tooltip "borderline source, Benthan Open are of a concern. Indianjournals.com/Diva Enterprise journals Check the UGC Lists". Would that be a valid source/and/or where would the UGC Lists stored? The article is published from Thieme Medical Publishers. scope_creep^Talk 10:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The source was originally published (10.4103) by Medknow, which was temporarily on Beall's list but was later cleared. Given it's the official journal of a non-insane organization (the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India), there's no real concern with that source at its face value. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Headbomb: scope_creep^Talk 22:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Frontiers Genetics (ethno-religious population origins)

There is a discussion at Talk:Genetic studies on Jews regarding the reliability of a study published in Frontiers Genetics. The study was recently removed from the article by Triggerhippie4, citing undue weight and quality problems. I have also questioned the reliability of the source based on the reputation of Frontiers Media SA, while Iskandar323 and Nishidani are more supportive of it.

Iskandar323 has floated the idea of a new RSN discussion, because past RSN discussions (such as this one) have never mentioned Frontiers Genetics, specifically. However, my take has been that, as a rule, all journals published by Frontiers Media SA are considered unreliable for bio-sciences, which includes population genetics. If Frontiers Public Health is unreliable, so is Frontiers Genetics.

Anyway, is Frontiers Genetics a reliable source for in-Wiki author statements like "not surprisingly, Ashkenazi Jews prove to compose a distinct yet quite integral branch of European genomic tapestry"? - Hunan201p (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The topic of the quality of the source as a whole is a somewhat separate discussion from individual instances of usage. These are macro and micro issues with respect to each other. If we unpack the first, the thing to pay attention to is the journal's own literature on its process, alongside its Impact Factor (4.772) and CiteScore (4.9). Regarding the example of individual article usage provided (a quote), even a self-published source can be used for a quote attributed to a sufficiently eminent subject-matter expert, per WP:SPS. Wikipedia's assessment of source quality is of more relevance to the question of whether a source can be used for statements of fact in Wikivoice. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment I am extremely perplexed as to why anyone should raise doubts about this source.

This is not about Frontiers of Science. It is about the reliability of Raphael Falk as a source for the history of genetics regarding the Israel/Palestine context.

• As someone whose German-Jewish parents fled Germany soon after Hitler’s seizure of power, Falk was particularly sensitive to ideas about race, particularly if they took place in his place of permanent refuge, Israel.
• Falk was a geneticist, one of the foremost scholars in that field in Israel, ending his career as emeritus professor of genetics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem-
• He became interested in the history of genetic theories in Zionist thinking and Israel, and went on to become an historian of science/biology, with a particular focus on theories about Jews.
• He wrote two works as an historian of biology (a) Genetic Analysis: A History of Genetic Thinking, Cambridge University Press, 2009 ISBN 978-0-521-88418-1 (linking to Robert Meunler’s review) and (b) Zionism and the Biology of Jews, Springer, 2017 ISBN 978-3-319-57345-8 (orig in Hebrew 2006), which zeroed in on the role of concepts of biology in the conceptualization of who Jews were within Zionism and, with the establishment of the state, Israel.

It is therefore utterly irrelevant what venue Falk chose to publish his overview in. Misguided attempts by editors of nondescript background (on the talk page it was even asserted that Falk's views were 'anti-Jewish', codelanguage for antisemitic!!!) to challenge his work on molecular genetics, or his theoretical and historical work, by citing one or two putative examples where his affirmations don't agree with snippets of what other wiki articles cite for ideas contary to those of Falk are, frankly, outrageous. His competence as an authority on the topic (as a geneticist and historian of biology) he is cited for has never, to my knowledge, been questioned. On the particular points paraphrased from Falk, the views are increasingly commonplace and have been endorsed by eminent scholars specializing on the origins of Jews as varied as Steven Weitzman (in his book The Origin of the Jews: The Quest for Roots in a Rootless Age, Princeton University Press (2017) 2019 ISBN 978-0-691-19165-2 and Shaye J. D. Cohen. There is nothing 'controversial' here. I've cited Falk's 2017 book for a number of articles and no one has ever thought this problematical.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Can't see a problem with citing a subject matter expert with attribution. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

For all genetics-related studies – whether they have appeared in Nature or Science, or in a journal which uneven output when it comes to Quality, like Frontiers in Genetics – the impact of the source is a good indicator for due weight. A widely cited paper in Frontiers in Genetics (and there are loads of them) is better than a low-impact article in Science. Falk's article "only" has 12 citations in Google Scholar, but then we have to consider that this is not your usual population genetics paper with PCAs and f₃-statistics, but a critical review of the methods and interpretations employed in modern population genetics in a very complex context. Such studies by their very nature have a different impact, quantitatively and qualitatively. So no undue weight here IMO, but I would probably move away from plain Wikivoice and attribute the material in-text to Falk. –Austronesier (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

What is an editor of nondescript background? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's the opposite of a high-pitched agitated editor, but I might be mistaken. –Austronesier (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I used the term both in the general sense, editors of indistinct background whose competence to judge cogently issues of genetics is unknownm (including myself), and, in the narrower sense, I had in mind the editor who today trashed an article by Israel's whilom foremost historian of biology, a leading geneticist, as 'junk', and yesterday binned the same with a dismissive insinuation he was an antisemite, i.e. pushing an 'anti-Jewish POV'. Perhaps in the latter instance, I should have used a harsher adjective. The first rule in editing complex topics is humility and an awareness of the limits of one's sense of omniscience.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment The subject of Jewish genetics is highly controversial and contested. Many editors involved in this discussion have insisted that Raphael Falk is a "professor emeritus" and pointed out that he is Jewish, as if this gives him the privilege to self-publish, or makes it impossible for him to be an anti-semite. However, see the example of Richard Falk, who is also a professor emeritus, also Jewish, and also an anti-semite. Raphael Falk, the genetics expert we are discussing, was not an anti-semite, but he was an anti-Zionist, and spent most of his career trying to refute any notion of distinctly "Jewish" genetic ancestry, for better or for worse. Falk's research has clear ideological underpinnings, since "As Raphael Falk has argued, the question of Jewish genetics is not solely a scientific one, since the way one interprets the science, the uses one puts it to, and the very way in which one poses the questions are cultural and political, rather than only scientific."[27] This makes Falk by admission an un-objective participant in this field of research, who is at the opposite end of a spectrum from zionists who believe in a Jewish 'race'. There are sometimes highly ranked professors with controversial or opinionated ideas, and they also get their works published in shoddy journals. See Richard Lynn as another example, but note that I am not comparing him to Raphael Falk. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not worth replying to because of (a) its epistemological naivity and (b) failure to grasp the principles of paradigm analysis in the history of ideas. Knowledge is embedded in interests and assumptions. Historical analysis teases out these biases, and no one who does that well assumes that they alone are exempt from the cognitive pressures of their own times and milieu. Don't reply please. Read at least Falk's works on the topic before blathering about the person.Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Richard Falk has been accused of antisemitism (so you might care to strike that comment), much like Kenneth Roth is, along with pretty much anyone else that criticizes Israel for anything at all (or they are accused of anti-Zionism it then being argued that is the same thing as antisemitism).Anyhow, this has fa to do with what we are discussing here. Selfstudier (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I second that. The editor should immediately strike out the absurd claim that Richard Falk is an antisemite. Disgraceful.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Falk is obviously not "anyone who has ever criticized Israel, at all".[28][29][30] IMO, Nishidani and Selfstudier are over-reacting here. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You are calling a still-living person, a Jew at that, an antisemite. Technically you mean he is a Self-hating Jew. The usual attack media can get away with that, and we invariably note the tripe as an accusation when a RS reports the assertions. You, as a wikipedian editor, cannot. You are not a reliable source, and you are way out of your depth here. So, retract that smear.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

IMO, your description of reliable sources as "usual attack media", as well as your very staunch defense of a guy who has been condemned for anti-Semitic stuff by several top diplomats, makes you seem like an especially tendentious editor. Are you really capable of bringing an objective and divorced perspective to this discussion? Please try to. - Hunan201p (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: This was meant to be a discussion about Frontiers Genetics, but you have utterly derailed your own thread by deviating from the topic entirely. I cautioned against the risk of mixing macro and micro in my first comment, and now this has become a discussion not about Frontiers, and not even about Raphael Falk, but—very confusingly for any other editors who might come across this discussion—Richard Falk, and whether they are antisemitic. It is basically worthless now. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Really? Did I do that all by myself?

Frontiers is a predatory publisher. Anything published in a Frontiers journal should be treated as suspect. If someone publishes in Frontiers, the first conclusion is that they couldn't publish with a non-predatory publisher. This comes across as a farrago of special pleading. If the guy wrote a blog post, is he such an expert that it would be a WP:MEDRS? Of course not - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I may be mistaken, but I think you've fallen for the very obvious confusion that has been invited here. I think the blog post you are referring to is that of Richard Falk, while the original discussion was about Raphael Falk (academic). The use of the example of a totally unrelated individual with the same surname and initials has obviously added to the confusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Or, if you are equating Frontiers with a blog, that hyperbole really needs explaining/justifying. Also, Frontiers Media was only classified as a "possible predatory publisher", and that was only according to the now highly dated 2015 Beall's list. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Frontiers journals are not treated as good-enough journals on Wikipedia, and if you want their predatory listing removed then a discussion on dubious genetics sources isn't a place to do that - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Not that we are really relying on Frontiers here, but just for my edification, where on WP is the consensus that Frontiers journals are not treated as good-enough journals on Wikipedia and where is the predatory listing? Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Source code as a reliable source for anything that papers doesn't have?

Continuation of the question about citing the actual source code as references in regards to verifiability policy since I now have a working demo for the sliding windowed infinite Fourier transform that can be cascaded just like IIR filters, which the original paper didn't mention it (not even alpha-SWIFT part) and it is cited on the relevant part on an article about sDFT. So the question is the source code a reliable source if there are working demos for it and there are no papers about any algorithms described by the actual source code? 2001:448A:3043:762C:746D:DED5:4321:8398 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

As was mentioned in the first discussion linked above, interpreting anything other than the most trivial and obvious information from source code is original research from a primary source, and concerns of due weight for article inclusion direct us to use secondary, not primary, sources when considering the addition of information to an article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Code that you wrote and posted on a WP:UGC site is clearly not a usable source. You can't evade WP:OR policy by posting on a different website first. MrOllie (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• No. Absolutely not. It is original research. This is not even a close question. Banks Irk (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

nosh.com as an RS

This is about a WP:COI article about my sister that is currently at Draft:Carla Vernón--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• I am trying to get a better understanding of how to pursue encyclopedic merit for my sister's bio, which has been declined at WP:AFC by User:Scope creep who broadly panned all the sources. I disagree with the assessment, but my understanding of its perspective has been improved by recent Draft talk page discussion with User:Rosguill. One specific source has also been described by User:Melcous as non-independent on the same Draft talk discussion. When I look at this source, which is not listed as one of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources that is unreliable, I view it as a piece of journalism in which the author requested comment that my sister responded to with some quotes that were included. However, the parts of the article that I intended to rely upon as a WP:RS appeared to me to be in the voice of the author. Rosguill suggested that the editorial process of this source may rely largely on PR packages rather than journalistic research. Can I get further clarification on whether Nosh is or isn't an WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The source and its parent is a news aggregator for the beverage industry that consists largely of disseminating press releases. In the case of this particular article, it appears to be reproducing the subject's email announcing a job change with the thinnest of veneer to make it look like a real article. There is nothing that inspires any confidence in the source. Not reliable, especially not for a BLP.Banks Irk (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't it listed at WP:RSP? On what basis do we know the unquoted content was from my sister's hand/voice?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

RSP is a list of stuff that has been repeatedly discussed on this and other WP-pages. If you know of such discussions about nosh.com, you can suggest it at RSP talk or go WP:BOLD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Banks Irk On what basis do we know the unquoted content was from my sister's hand/voice?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The article explicitly says so. It references and extensively quotes her email. Banks Irk (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Conversion and Social Equality in India: The London Missionary Society in South Travancore in the 19th Century

What kind of source is this book and what does it tell about the Chanda ruler? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda, afaict, the publisher is Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and you can read/search the book at [31]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Same book, other publisher:[32] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Not showing more than eleven pages. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda You have to register to read it in full, but it's free to do so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: The part of this book visible in Google search was not found here. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Rulers, Criminals and Denotified Tribe: A Historical Journey of the Meenas

How is this source? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Probably should give the fuller cite: Meena, Madan. 2021. “Rulers, Criminals and Denotified Tribe: A Historical Journey of the Meenas.” In Tribe-British Relations in India, edited by Maguni Charan Behera, 275–90. Singapore: Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3424-6_17. Springer is a respected academic publisher so it is likely to be ok Erp (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Erp: Is it useful for Alan Singh Chanda and Chanda dynasty. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. This noticeboard is about whether a source is likely to be reliable, not whether a source would be useful for a particular topic. Erp (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

See the note at the top of this page: assessments should be made for The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting... Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y". AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

StatMuse

StatMuse is the eponymous interactive AI (Chatbot) of the StatMuse company (basically a ChatGPT with a sports focus). Is its use on articles such as List of National Football League players with multiple 1,000-yard receiving seasons appropriate? It appears that someone asked the AI "Which Wide Receiver Has The Most 1000 Yard Receiving Seasons" and we're now using that answer as the only source on the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Not a WP:RS... Probably needs to be formally deprecated or blacklisted. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

"lmao" is all I'll say about that last sentence. The things we see! DFlhb (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I would also note that the details in the table doesn't even match the reference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Which may be because the source is dynamically generated and therefore can be expected to keep changing. Another reason to avoid these sites. DFlhb (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Definitely, a nonstable source can not be verified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there any copyright concern over republishing tables generated by StatMuse, or would they be to generic as they are just statistics? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC

Which of the following best describes the StatMuse chatbot?

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

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure RFCs on individual chatbots are the right approach here. WP:LLM (a draft) declares them all unreliable in one fell swoop, which seems more appropriate, since I doubt there are any specifics that would make one chatbot more reliable than another. DFlhb (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing use on well over 500 pages, to me that means there really does have to be a formal centralized discussion. If it was under 100 I would do it myself but I'm just not comfortable being *that* bold. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

A search "only" yielded 211 pages for me, hence my reply. But yes, in that case, Deprecate or at the least GUNREL. DFlhb (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you add in the variants like "stat muse"? Search on wiki is not my strong suit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I searched insource:"url=https://www.statmuse.com" so it only picks up the URL parameter of {{cite web}}. Otherwise you get articles like Terry Crews that contain the words "stat" and "muse" but no citation to that site.

Can also do that in PetScan, "Other Sources" tab, "Search query" field, and it gives a nice list. DFlhb (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok so the cleanest search I can find is insource:"www.statmuse.com" which returns two eighty something without any apparent errors. The more specific search misses lazy cites like the one at Tom Van Arsdale. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's necessary to have the RFC and not just declare all such sources unusable for referencing purposes, then Deprecate. The other problem these seem to raise is of OR, take this for example. It's currently in use and uses a complex set of criteria, those criteria are being set by the editor. No other sources is publishing the specific details, it brings to mind a discussion above were an editor has written code to prove a particular algorithm. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the OR question is inherent in the category of incredibly niche lists and the Chatbots just allow it to be smoother, see List of college football coaches with 150 NCAA Division I FCS wins for example. If we check the edit history we find that it was not made because there was coverage of the topic in WP:RS or anything else which would indicate notability but because they "Decided to create a list I've wanted to add for a couple of years." and worked backwards from there... Thats a problem whether you piece it together from databases yourself or use a chatbot to piece it together. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

At least on those cases someone has actually published the statistics, I wouldn't count them towards notability though. In this case the editor is creating the reference to meet the content they want to add, that's extremely problematic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but that "someone" is primarily a defunct SPS now available only in archive form, example [33]. Almost everything down this hole is problematic, chatbots are just the new lowest level of hell. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Those chatbot prompts are particularly deadly. AI chatbots give you whatever answer you're looking for. I just asked ChatGPT which US President had a chihuahua. It said "none". I told it: "I thought Eisenhower had one." And it said: You are correct! President Dwight D. Eisenhower did have a Chihuahua named Heidi. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. But all Eisenhower had was a Weimaraner. Chatbots are like a child being asked leading questions by a policeman.

Any super-specific question, like the one you link, is extremely like to lead to confabulation. How long until one of these bots claims it was abused by Satanists? DFlhb (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Oneindia as a reliable source

Oneindia is a website which provides informations like list of members of a state legislature in India[1], biography of politician[2], news updates[3] and also do factcheck[4]. The website has news in many main languages like English, Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, Gujarati and Kannada language.[5] Some leading news medias like Times Internet and The Times of India used it as news stories.The Hindu, most trusted newspaper of India wrote is as "one of India's leading portals". [6]

@Elmmapleoakpine wrote that Oneindia.com "Seems reliable to me" at here. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I used to consider the Times of India to be a reliable and venerable source published since 1838 until I learned about Paid news in India, which indicates that major publications in India such as the Times of India will give you favorable coverage if you pay them, or ignore you if you do not pay them. If this practice is widespread, then we need to refuse the reliability of any Indian news source that does not explicitly reject this "pay to play" business model. Cullen328 (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Can I use Oneindia in any wikipedia article as a citation. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 12:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

LordVoldemort728, I recommend that you be cautious. Here is what an editor who knows much more about Indian news media than I do wrote in 2015:

"I have never been particularly happy with anything relating to oneindia.in It seems often to be an aggregator and I've seen enough examples where the aggregation appeared to include material that closely resembled our own articles. Proving unattributed use of our material would require a lot of work but perhaps we need to try to do that at some point. For now, I would suggest not using it in BLPs on the basis of "least harm". - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)"

Please take that into consideration. Cullen328 (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Just to comment on one thing LordVoldemort728 said above, "Can I use Oneindia in any wikipedia article as a citation." If we replaced "Oneindia" with any other source in the world, my answer would be "no", but let me explain. Contextless statements of reliability are basically worthless. Nothing should be called reliable to say anything you want at any time for any reason. The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. Even sources which we consider "generally reliably" need to be assessed against what specific information is being written in Wikipedia and how the source is reliable for verifying the information in question. It's never a free-for-all for any source. Finding reliable sources should be a deliberate, considered process; information should be compared across multiple sources if possible to check concordance, it isn't as simple as googling some idea and taking the first thing that looks like it might be a reliable source. --Jayron32 18:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC about the inclusion of tornadoes via a specific source on List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes

There is an ongoing RfC to determine if a source is not acceptable for the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes’s section for possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes officially rated F4/EF4/T9 or lower. You can participate in the RfC in this discussion section. Elijahandskip (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hürseda Haber

Any opinions on this turkish journal I've never heard of and isn't mentioned in archived discussions? I haven't found any english sources for its statements. In particular, is it considered reliable for using the following quote, that contrasts with what most Western perennial reliable sources have been reporting?

"İddia: MOSSAD'a göre Ukrayna ve Rusya kayıpları". hurseda.net (in Turkish). Archived from the original on 25 January 2023. As of 14 january according to Israeli intelligence sources: Killed combatants: NATO: 2,692; Non-NATO: 2,360; Ukrainians: 157,000; Russians: 18,480. Wounded combatants: Ukrainians: 234,000; Russians: 44,500.

Thanks for your inputs. 89.206.112.12 (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The source itself might be OK (it gets cited by others) but the statement (translated) "Allegedly, the field data of January 14, 2023, based on Israeli intelligence,..." would give me pause. I would want confirmation from elsewhere for that info. Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

it has been cited, but not in a good way [[34]]. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If Israeli intelligence estimates are being made public, which is possible, then I think we should try to get them from a stronger source. One concern is trying to make sure that this is really from them, but a second aspect is trying to make sure we use a source that has a reputation for the competencies needed to interpret such information. As with governments, not all comments from intelligence services is equally reliable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If they are, why to this source, why not to a better quality (say, Israeli) one? But what do we know about this source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that this does not match public Israeli intelligence estimates, those numbers are all wrong. I think you're looking at a Russian information operation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The details they are posting have been widely debunked, so regardless of the site the particular article is not reliable for anything. See AFP or PolitiFact. Previous Russian disinformation about NATO troops fighting in Ukraine has also followed the same pattern, see this BBC article from last September for instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

Recent paper by Jan Grabowski & Shira Klein discussing Wikipedia's coverage of the Holocaust in Poland in The Journal of Holocaust Research. Link is here (Open Access). The paper (as its title would suggest) is quite critical. Are these criticisms founded? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Completely founded. They also didn't find everything, see for example Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333#Mass removal of criticisms from the Polish Institute of National Remembrance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

One of those co-authors has been directly mentioned by a indef-banned editor who holds their exact same opinions by the looks of it (based off a quick search). And the article seems to be very against certain editors that the unnamed editor also had issues with. Granted, I wasn't on Wikipedia when all this went down, but from an outsider's perspective, there's clearly a bias that at least one of the co-authors hold. Plus, given the authors obvious in-depth research of all the editors named in the article, I cannot believe they weren't aware of the arbitration about the topic and the changes made over the years to actively combat misleading or biased info. The article also uses diffs that date back to 2011 that were made by a separate indef-banned editor as evidence of Wikipedia's bias. In addition, it also seems to want to push POV into articles that are neutrally-worded. Rhayailaina (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't say this lightly as I take antisemitism and Holocaust denial quite seriously. But I also find the framing of the article to be questionably done. Rhayailaina (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The more I look into the authors, the more one seems to be very overly-biased. Klein seems reputable and good at not inserting a POV. But Grabowski's entire body of work is nothing but this topic. Some of it looks quite good and well-researched, but some of it seems to be singling out Poland as a bad actor, and not that Europe as a whole had certain biases that weren't unique to Poland. Rhayailaina (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It's very obvious from that text that it was co-written by Icewhiz and is essentially a list of his grievances, feuds and yes, lies. 99.99% of this material has been combed over repeatedly by a very wide and diverse group of Arbitrators, Administrators and commentators. If anyone wants to point to/ask about a specific issue then go for it. We can re-re-re-re-hash these disputes for the millionth time I guess. Volunteer Marek 04:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Icewhiz was monumentally disruptive, but they weren't fundamentally wrong when it came to what was taking place in articles related to the Holocaust in Poland. Wait, you have barely over 20 edits. How do you know who Icewhiz is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No, Icewhiz was indeed "fundamentally wrong" which is why they were topic banned. They were notorious for misrepresenting and lying about sources as well as about other editors. Volunteer Marek 04:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The article mentioned Icewhiz by name, which I didn't recognize that name so I wanted to see who that was. Rhayailaina (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Lets see what you found, where is this direct mention which demonstrates a clear bias from your outsider's perspective. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, well the bias isn't just the mention alone, but the mention is right above the image that is figure 1. As for Icewhiz mentioning the author by name previously years ago, I can link that in a min. Rhayailaina (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Where is the bias? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)