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: Business Insider news reporting

Insider won the 2022 Pulitzer Prize for Illustrated Reporting and Commentary for its reporting on the story of an woman's escape from an internment camp (see: Uyghur genocide); the story was filed under its news section. Currently, WP:RSP describes Insider — with the exception of its culture section, which is considered RS — as being unclear in terms of reliability (option 2).

Is Insider's news (section) coverage, at least since December 2021 (when the Pulitzer winning story published), considered generally reliable for factual reporting?

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

-- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey (BI)

• Bad RfC and procedural close. WP:RFCNEUTRAL commands that the prompt should be neutrally worded, but this prompt expresses a specific call-to-action (Based on this Pulitzer development, I believe that we should reconsider its news coverage's classification). If you believe that the reporting should be reconsidered, then that should only appear in a comment or !vote, not in the RfC prompt. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC) (struck as moot 00:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC))

  @Mhawk10: Good catch. I didn't intend that. I have moved it to the discussion section. Does that address the concern? TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  @TheSandDoctor: Yes, that addresses my concern. As such, I've struck my !vote above as moot. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhawk10: I am glad that I was able to address that and correct it soon enough. Thank you for raising that and for striking now that it is resolved. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2: Additional considerations apply. That Pulitzer-winning piece is an excellent piece and drives home a woman's story about the abuses she endured in such a direct and powerful way that can only be conveyed in that illustrated medium. And by driving home the sheer scope of the inhumanity in that region through the one woman's lens there is little doubt that Insider deserves that prize. But there just far too many issues with Insider for me to consider it generally reliable for news over its entire lifetime.
  1. Reading through the previous RfC, almost nobody there considered Insider to be WP:GREL at that time. There may have been substantial improvements in the editorial control and fact-checking processes at BI in the intermittent two years (perhaps that culminated with the sort of detailed reporting necessary for a Pulitzer), but winning a Pulitzer in 2022 isn't good evidence that BI was reliable in 2013 (or really early in its history, when it was basically a collection of self-published blogs).
  2. The issues present at the time the source was evaluated in 2020 are still real issues that were present through much of the source's history (and may still be present today). Their editorial staffing decisions before acquisition by Axel Springer were... questionable. Prior to its acquisition by Axel Springer, the publication lacked editorial independence from advertisers, accepted (disclosed) quid-pro-quo payments from sources and article subjects, and repeatedly published false stories without doing basic fact-checking. And, while editorial staff kinda sorta purged themselves in 2016 shortly after they got acquired by Axel Springer, the mass exodus of staff didn't actually lead to swiftly improved editorial quality.
  3. I don't mind Axel Springer as an owner; it does publish Bild, but it also publishes Die Welt and Politico (although the acquisition of Politico is recent). Media companies often hold a variety of different publications, the quality of which can vary significantly (for example, News Corporation concurrently owned The Times of London, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, News of the World, and The Sun). But the longstanding issues with the reliability of the website didn't go away overnight; in 2016 an analysis in Columbia Journalism Review called it the poster child for churnalism and that it often published clickbait that turned out to be false. The non-disparagement clauses in its contracts are... not great for journalistic accountability.

In short, even though Business Insider was acquired by Axel Springer in 2015, and there very well may have been an improvement in its more recent quality of coverage, I really can't point to 2016 as the date where journalistic practices improved; I'm not really able to set a firm date where I can say that these chronic issues with Business Insider came to a halt. Feel free to propose one and make an argument for it, but I'm just not sure I can support a time-based split on reliability without a good reason. The only reason I'm WP:MREL here as opposed to WP:GUNREL is (1) a Pulitzer means something and (2) I expect it to be fine for ordinary sorts of business reporting. But I can't in good faith look past all of the publication's issues and say it's been WP:GREL since it started. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think that being run by a convicted felon is per se disqualifying (the New Jersey Globe is run by David Wildstein but is well-regarded even by its competitors and by people who are not sympathetic to Wildstein). But that the guy was chosen to lead a business publication after being more or less legally barred from the securities industry by the SEC for alleged fraud, combined with the publication's lack of editorial independence from advertisers, is a bit of a red flag regarding pre-Axel Springer BI. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: The question was "Is Insider's news (section) coverage, at least since December 2021 (when the Pulitzer winning story published), considered generally reliable for factual reporting" (emphasis added). This is also about the section, not the the publication as a whole. This would seemingly address all of the points that you raised? The question wasn't really about whether it was reliable for all of its history, but the Pulitzer is a very good sign that its recent (news) coverage has probably vastly improved and is more reliable, no? Publications can change over time (see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I need to read more carefully before writing. That being said, there is still recognition that Business Insider is nowhere near the same journalistic league as Politico, and the continued use of traffic quotas leads to stories being a bit more clickbaity than news-y. Pulitzer or not, I'm not really confident that BI has flushed this stuff out yet, and I don't think that one excellent piece is enough to make the whole operation WP:GREL in light of its longstanding problems that seem to still to have been recognized as recently as this year. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: The problem is that the term "clickbait" is extremely subjective and arguably can be found at the NYT or elsewhere easily. Have you run into serious clickbait or (verifiably) false stories in their news section coverage in recent history? The concerns I have seen in past RfCs don't involve this section, were corrected as you'd expect from a site with editorial control, or are often years old (publications can change over time, see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS); we have also proven previously with other publications (and even Insider) that sections can be individually assessed.

As an interesting aside, I just realized and double-checked (CTRL + F searched through the winners of years) and Politico and Insider are now tied in Pulitzer wins at once a piece. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I was just reviewing the last RfC and wanted to add that Pyrrho the Skipper addressed this well previously, as did Bilorv's supplement. "We should stay neutral regarding the issue of "clickbait", as it's subjective and not all that helpful in determining fact-checking standards. The New York Times publishes headlines that could be considered clickbait. And I see that coming up frequently as a bit of an emotional, knee-jerk reason to discredit this publication." and the supplement (by Bilorv) "I'd add to this that headlines are not reliable, the body of articles is what we're talking about, so if "clickbait" is just in the headline then it doesn't matter much (though it would be strange to encounter, say, a publication with exceptional fact checking in its articles but lies in its headlines)." (emphasis in original) TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If my only objection were that the headlines are inaccurate and sensationalist, (which BI statistically engages in quite often, I would agree that this is no issue in light of WP:HEADLINE. But the long-standing concern here is not merely that the headlines are at times akin to those published by content farms—it is the churnalism that this news organization’s editorial structure actively has encouraged both before and after acquisition by Axel Springer. That the reputation of the firm remained that way—even in January 2022—cannot be reduced to merely its decision to frequently use sensationalist headlines. It reflects something much more substantial about the quality of its article content, which is ultimately what we care about when evaluating this publication’s reliability for news. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Clickbait reflects a practice of "dramatization" that seems contrary to reliability. Of course, it's only one criteria in the catalog that we use — which is why it has little importance for an outlet like the New York Times but can have a lot of weight for i-promise-this-is-reliable.net. JBchrch talk 17:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2, as per excellent summary by MHawk10. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 No numerical vote yet per withinNo point being a jerk, even though I was a jerk before it got all commercialized.: The previous RfC has a great list of BI's failings and questionable practices by Chetsford. However, a few issues with the list: one is the acknowledged difference between pre-2016 practices and now. Another is the bottom CJR review mentions BI only in a paragraph referencing the CNN article directly beneath it. Minor nitpicks on a list of serious shortcomings, sure. There is also an important mitigating factor in these shortcomings: that BI publishes on its stories corrections, retractions, and financial COIs (which is why CJR is making a point about ethics in the latter). I am generally skeptical of "bias/reliability check" sites for news outlets, for both methodology and first principles, but they generally give BI a high rating (The Factual's review details some of the objections raised). And of course headlines should always be disregarded in these analyses for too many reasons. I will likely not vote for any option until the wording on the rating system is changed, but BI should be considered generally acceptable, with each article subject to editor scrutiny (just almost any other source should be). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  @SamuelRiv: Just to clarify, that was the second previous RfC. The actual "previous" one before this was this one where the culture section/coverage was found to be RS. What did you mean by "working on the rating system is changed"? We stop saying "generally reliable"? If so, that appears to be the standard question set asked and the two (reliable/acceptable) would appear rather interchangeable in meaning? Not trying to pick a fight or anything, just clarifying for others which the latest RfC was and wanting to (personally) better understand your comment. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding the actual previous RfC then, I guess my understanding of journalism is far more limited than I imagined because I had no idea what was going on there. I don't remember the last time I've read a "culture" story and I didn't recognize who half the people in those linked articles were. Apparently the kids all want to watch "my tube" now? I don't see why they can't just watch their own. Regarding the color rating system, I posted a comment on RSP about contradictory criteria and seeming misuse of the term "opinion". And of course the green check mark is portrayed by some users as if the veracity of a source is now intrinsic with the fabric of the universe. So I'm not really comfortable with the system as it stands. "Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting" would accurately summarize my opinion of BI from what I've assessed here, however. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 - There is some good content on the site, but it still has a lot of attention-grabbing headlines on less well-researched stories or mixed reporting/pov content. There are many more reliable sources for widely covered news and analysis, so case-by-case scrutiny for Insider is not too much of a burden. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Options 2 or 3 - Best not to fully trust any news media. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think this is where the phrase "generally reliable" comes in; all outlets make mistakes, what matters is whether they correct them and the frequency of issues. If I understand correctly, by the logic in your comment, we'd deem every RS source to not be RS and call everything unreliable. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If it's corporate backed? You're darn right not to trust it. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 Insider would probably get similar treatment here to HuffPost, Politico, etc. if it wasn't "business" Insider. Most of the objections here are old and could also be leveled at all media companies at some point. Insider is allowed to improve their standards over the year just like BuzzFeed (News). And look, they just won a Pulitzer. Editors need to look past their unwarranted icky feelings about this site. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2. Basically a tabloid. Clickbait, informal style, speculation, hype, and this kind of vibe where you're very much aware of the fact that you're not reading something on the level of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Do headlines such as "We got an exclusive look at the 24-slide LP deck European climate fund Climentum Capital used to close the first batch of its $156 million fund" and "Toast's CEO talks how his company will dominate the $55 billion restaurant-tech space even as its stock is slammed post-IPO by market headwinds" make you trust this outlet unconditionally? Me neither. I am aware that this is a superficial argument that doesn't reach the strength of Mhawk10's analysis but sometimes... you know it when you see it. About that Pulitzer, I will just note that it's in the Illustrated Reporting and Commentary...For a distinguished portfolio of editorial cartoons or other illustrated work (still, animated, or both) characterized by political insight, editorial effectiveness, or public service value. I fully appreciate the level of talent and the amount of work needed to achieve something like that but I'm not sure that it's that relevant to assess reliability in the context of Wikipedia. JBchrch talk 17:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  @JBchrch: I will just note that none of the referenced premium stories are from the news section, which is predominately free reading, and therefore not exactly relevant to the question being asked. Have you seen any particular problems with the news section? The question here isn't evaluating the whole publication; this is asking specifically about their news section coverage. The average headline and story content for the news section seems rather newsy. e.g. "A long-lost letter from Alexander Hamilton about the war with the British has been returned and is now on display in Boston", "Highland Park shooting suspect charged with 7 counts of first-degree murder with 'dozens more' to be pursued, state attorney says", "China refutes NASA chief's claim that the country is looking to take over the moon", "The Highland Park shooting suspect confessed to carrying out the massacre during police interview, prosecutors say" etc. Normal, routine news coverage you would expect of a publication. BuzzFeed and BuzzFeed News, for example, are treated differently and we've already previously established that different Insider sections can be assessed differently (Insider's culture section is considered RS). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying that point, which I had indeed missed. However, I'm not sure it makes a difference. The way I understand how insider.com works is that it publishes individual stories which it categorizes with various tags. So for instance How a 'Minions' meme craze among teens may have boosted the new movie's box office is a "Media" story which can be also found in the "News" section. So, contrary to Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News, which are two different websites, Insider is one single website, which I think should be assessed as a whole. (Perhaps that makes me a dissenter to Insider Culture RfC.) This is confirmed by the fact that even if you are in the News section of the website, if you click on "Latest", it shows you the latest stores published in all the sections of the website, including I'm a professional baker who tried making Martha Stewart's signature yellow cake. Here are 2 ways I'd improve her recipe., an article in the Food section. JBchrch talk 17:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  @JBchrch: WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS demonstrates that while Rolling Stone is a single website, its sections can be assessed independently as well; as such, this isn't an unprecedented question. "Latest" is indeed the feed of all latest articles in all sections by the looks of it, but that is also irrelevant to this RfC at hand as already described. I was also mostly referring to insider.com/news (that was the Q), but on both sites in the "news" section the headlines appear generally normal (hence "generally reliable" being our standard) and like your average news story/site. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS came about basically because the magazine has a history of publishing false and (court-proven) libelous stories with scant fact-checking in the area of politics/social issues and only that area. Its reputation for fact checking and accuracy is very different for its music coverage, where it is regarded as being very good. But I’m not seeing something parallel here; most of the criticism I am seeing for Insider is about its site-wide practices, not just criticism of practices related to a specific topic area or subdomain. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 per MHawk10.4meter4 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, and not limited to the time after the Pulitzer. From reading the counterarguments in the previous RfC, they are frankly not at all convincing to me. Business Insider certainly makes mistakes, but they are the same sorts of mistakes that any WP:NEWSORG would make (and in fact several of the problems identified with it are problems with many other similar WP:NEWSORGs). They do correct themselves when they make mistakes and clearly have a reasonable editorial review process. Loki (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, of course. Business Insider, and Insider.com in general, is a serious and reliable news site. Putting the Pulitzer-winning article aside, Insider has written great and well-sourced articles about the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the killing of American Mormons in the LeBarón and Langford families massacre, incarceration of American federal inmates during covid, profiles of famous people like Marissa Mayer and Larry Page, how eBay turned increased its dirt-cheap stock by US$50 million, how Colorado's marijuana industry faced a difficult economic crisis in 2011, the disruptions that will be caused by Queen Elizabeth II's death, rape allegations made against David Dobrik's Vlog Squad, and much more. Indeed, there is a liberal bias. Insider has a tabloidal entertainment section with attention-grabbing titles and bizarre listicles. But these issues can be addressed with nuance when noting credibility without destroying the entire site's great reputation. NewsGuard rates Insider.com a perfect score of 100, stating, "Insider has published substantive, originally reported stories on topics such as immigration and human rights." The Factual places Insider in the 90th percentile of its factual grading, writing, "Business Insider’s tendency to provide extensive evidence within articles goes a long way in explaining these reliable scores. The site also has a deep bench of experienced journalists who routinely cover the same beats, such as business and technology." FlantasyFlan (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 I agree with Mhawk10's excellent analysis. The linked articles on Insider's significant clickbait articles and lack of editorial independence previoualy are of course issues. I do feel that its news sections are not atrocious (but there were lots of controversies, I think I can link a lot of past concerns (see 1, 2, 3 that might be prevalent, albeit less so, now. But I would say that its current news sections does seem to be fairly better than the past ones, but it's noteworthy that it's Pulitzer Prize is an Illustrated Prize produced mainly by others, and it's not actually a prize awarded to the Business Insider journalists for breaking news or investigative reporting. Still, some business sections and past news reporting are like sensational tabloids, for them maybe Option 2/3. Overall, I think for post-2021 news probably Option 1/2, but it's still improtable that all of the past issues have been addressed.

@FlantasyFlan: @SamuelRiv: Just a (unfortunately way too long) side note, but I strongly disagree with the links to the so-called The Factual. Other editors would probably disagree, but I find it to be atrocious. It considers itself to be a blog and states its "objective" method here. Note that it cites Media Bias Fact Check and Allsides, which there's consensus are marginally reliable or generally unreliable. Per here, The Washington Post is considered Moderate-Left based on data from AllSides and Media Bias Fact Check — the two non-partisan websites that we use to assess the political orientation of news outlets. And judging from what I see, the algorithm is horrible. Looking at the ratings, Business Insider is rated more highly than Associated Press and the NY Times, two of (at least IMO) newspapers of record or credible agencies. By the way, it could be argued that AP and The Economist have a left-centre bias, but Jacobin, which is probably progressive left, is rated higher. Further, the Washington Examiner is somehow considered to ber one of the best refs. See its controversies in the past, and WP's summary. However, The Factual somehow considers Our selection reveals a rich, layered media ecosystem. There are numerous general news sources that deliver high-quality daily news (Reuters, Washington Examiner, Business Insider), I find it to be almost absurd that the Washington Examiner is considered to be a better ref to use than AP or The Economist, and is apparently the same with ABC and Reuters. The inconsistencies are enough for me to say that its ratings should be taken with a grain of salt at best, and despite an abouts us page (see here), there's no clear editorial policies. Also, its algorithm apparently discount the rating for lack of authors seen in some media such as The Economist and Reuters, per this line: Some sites don’t have authors at all (e.g., Reuters or the Economist) or the algorithm is unable to pull that information due to the formatting (e.g., South China Morning Post). The articles still may be informative but because The Factual could not validate some elements the articles with rate lower. By the way, its grammar is confusing, the use of "with" doesn't seem to be the most clear grammar, and especially considering that this is their methodology page, it should definitely be made clearer. Of course, a lot of SCMP articles have authors, but they discount the ratings because of formatting (?). Overall, I don't disagree with the current consensus (Option 1/2), but do disagree with several editors relying on The Factual. Many thanks for your help, apologies this is too long and unclearly worded, I would suggest reading Mhawk10's analysis again as it's considerably better than mine! VickKiang (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Washington Examiner is not reliable. It should not be considered reliable. Andrevan@ 23:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I probably agree with you, but The Factual apparently considers it high-quality per my comments above, so I think its methodology is questionable. VickKiang (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not sure about Insider though. But I'd support an RFC to downgrade Washington Examiner. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Andrevan@ 23:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Some refs are convincing to show the ref's poor, but Ad Fontes and MBFC are generally unreliable, and shouldn't be used to form an RfC (on the Noticeboard, when editing, it suggests Do not base your RfC solely on Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry), as it is not a reliable source. Allsides has some debate. I don't think launching an RfC based on three generally unreliable/marignally reliable refs are the best, but I'm sure there are better examples (credible fact checkers, newspapers) criticising the Examiner. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang: I don't disagree with a word you said, and I wish there was a rating site that didn't suck (at least for reliability; bias is nonsense I've never seen a decent methodology to rate bias outside selective academic studies). It might not be possible. And honestly, maybe I just used The Factual over MBFC and Ad Fontes (which I ended up using later on) because 1) it has a write-up on this particular outlet, and 2) it said what I somewhat expected it to say and didn't do anything that (in my immediate impression) was completely stupid up-front. And that's a terrible basis for me to then implicitly endorse a such site (by linking it without qualification). Mea culpa, won't repeat, and thanks for calling me out. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (BI)

• Based on this Pulitzer development, I believe that we should reconsider its news coverage's classification. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  That's true, I do think it's persuasive to win a Pulitzer. That seems like an upgrade. Andrevan@ 23:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that after a major commendation it's worth reviewing that particular section of an outlet, or that editor or journalist; and in general any publication on RSP should be subject to periodic review. Of course with a century of history, it's a trivial to find some hideous Pulitzer wins (and general perennial grumblings). The more relevant point is that one shiny piece of investigation/photojournalism/commentary/review/(22 categories) is, in an otherwise low-quality outlet, probably more indicative of a promising journalist/editor than anything else. There's a somewhat well-known exchange, as part of Al Franken's political comedy, of Bill O'Reilly trying to enhance his journalistic prestige by citing the fact that Access Hollywood, which he once anchored, had won a Polk Award, which of course he had nothing to do with. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Denisova's declarations on child rape

The question is whether former Ukrainian ombudsperson Lyudmyla Denisova's interviews and statements about sexual crimes committed by Russian soldiers in Ukraine qualify as reliable source in the context of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Some background information is needed. Since March 2022 Denisova has released interviews and statements about rapes committed by Russian troops against infants, children, young women and men, elderly people. We already had a discussion on this at RS/N, following which we dropped the more gruesome, shocking details from the article on War crimes and we're now saying that Denisova reported multiple rapes of children, some very young. We are also reporting that according to her about 25 girls and women between the ages of 14 to 24 were locked in a basement and raped for almost a month in Bucha, and nine became pregnant (as reported, but not verified, by New York Times, BBC and other outlets). However, in the article Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine her declarations are still published in detail, although we are not reporting her statement about a 6-month-old girl raped by a Russian solider with a teaspoon.

Since that first discussion at RS/N, 140 Ukrainian journalists and human rights activists have signed an open letter asking Denisova, among other things, to Publish only that information for which there is enough evidence, check the facts before publication (here the letter in Ukrainian [8], here an account in English [9]). On 31 May the Ukrainian Parliament removed her from office accusing her, among other things, of making "not verified", "unverifiable" or "unsubstantiated" declarations about child rape (these being the words used by Deutsche Welle, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post respectively). At the end of June, Ukrainska Pravda published a report on Denisova (in Ukrainian) which was summarised in English by Meduza (here). The report says that Denisova was circulating information gathered by her daughter, who was working for a psychological helpline service Denisova had set up; it says that Denisova's office never sent any information about the alleged crimes or the victims' contact information to law enforcement agencies; finally, it says that Denisova explained to the Ukrainian prosecutor office that she "told these horrific stories because she wants Ukraine to be victorious."

Based on this essay on interviews, I think that Denisova's statements qualify as a secondary source on war crimes in Ukraine; based on the information I've just shared, I believe that they don't qualify as reliable sources on conflict-related sexual violence in Ukraine. We had a couple of discussions on this in the talk page of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: #Denisova's dismissal and #25 girls between the ages of 14 to 24 raped in Bucha, held captive in a basement, nine became pregnant and we didn't reach a consensus. I hope that a discussion at RS/N could help us move forwards. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Having read that the Ukrainian parliament don't consider her reliable in her declarations, and that these statements may harm potential victims of sexual violence, it is fairly clear that she is not a reliable source for any factual statements. As both sides in the war consider her to be making statements which are at least partially false, I can't see how we can use her statements in anything other the article about her. She is in essence WP:FRINGE. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

On 31 May the Ukrainian Parliament removed her from office accusing her, among other things, of making "not verified", "unverifiable" or "unsubstantiated" declarations about child rape (these being the words used by Deutsche Welle, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post respectively). Worth noting that these words are neither from the parliamentary statement on her removal nor from these RSs’ descriptions of it, but their paraphrase of a social media post by one (important) MP. Agree we can’t use her as a source for particular atrocities happening (unless verified by other sources) but we can mention her comments with attribution as she’s obviously a major figure in the story. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to include her comments without immediate qualification that she made unverified statements and didn't check her facts. If we have to do that, why are we including her comments? Reference to her is only warranted on the page about her, or possibly in a section which explains that her comments are unreliable. I can't see any other way under WP:NPOV to include comments which everybody accepts to be dubious.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Making that qualification risks SYNTH. I’d need to see an example of a contested use, but for example if multiple RSs say “Denisova alleged X” that might be noteworthy even if other sources say other allegations weren’t verified by anyone else. If we mention specific allegations that RSs say weren’t verified, then we should make the qualification. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Can I check, is this the disputed text? It feels due to me as couple of strong RSs. If it is the disputed text, are there sources saying this specific allegation was unverified (because it’s different from the child rape cases the open letter focuses on isn’t it?) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your position @Bobfrombrockley because it seems to me you're making two incompatible claims. On the one hand, you say that if multiple RSs say “Denisova alleged X” that might be noteworthy. I agree that it might be noteworthy in an article on Denisova but I don't understand how it might be noteworthy in an article on war crimes in Ukraine (unless Denisova is taken to be a reliable source). On the other hand, you are also saying that you Agree we can’t use her as a source for particular atrocities happening. But how do the two things work together? In March and April, The New York Times, BBC and the others took Denisova as a reliable source on war crimes because she had access to important informative channels. But in May quality press at large stopped publishing her horrific accounts of war crimes in Ukraine, and today The New York Times would no longer write "Denisova alleged X". By the way, this recent report by the OHCHR doesn't mention 25 young girls raped for a month in a basement, rapes against toddlers, baby tortured with a teaspoon, children used as human shields: there's a huge amount of terrible war crimes, but not these. So why should we continue to have Denisova's allegations in our articles? Why should we be less reliable than our sources? We are writing an encyclopedia and we should choose our sources carefully. We have many policies and guidelines that should prevent us from uncritically include these materials: WP:RS, WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS and also WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I’d need to see the disputed text to know what’s being argued over. But what I’m saying is we probably shouldn’t say “x atrocity occurred” and cite her as a source, but we might want to say “Denisova alleged x atrocity occurred” in a context where it is noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Re SYNTH, there are several Rs which deal with Denisova's sacking and detail the criticisms of her, alongside details of her claims. I don't see how SYNTH could be relevant here.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be SYNTH if we said something like "Denisova alleged X[fn1] but some have accused her of making unverifiable allegations[fn2]". (If a single source includes both, that wouldn't be SYNTH, or if the specific allegation we mentioned was contested in an RS.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that would be synth, but there would be not need to do that as sources which detail both her claims and the reaction to them exist. Denisova's claims should not be in the main body of the article, as nobody thinks she is reliable. What might possibly be valid is a separate section detailing the fact she made certain claims and the reaction to them, indicating that there were severe doubts about her reliability. I don't think there would be any difficulty avoiding synth, given the wealth of sources which cover her sacking. --Boynamedsue (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I see this as a fundamental misunderstanding of “what is a source”. Denisova is not the source. The media reports of her statements are the sources. The real question is whether statements about war crimes in Ukraine made by a Ukrainian official appointed to investigate war crimes are notable. The fact that she was reproved for talking so much about “unverified” claims was accompanied by complaints that somebody else had done her duties with respect to humanitarian corridors and other quite obvious crimes of aggression such as the bombing of kindergartens and other civilian infrastructure. Sexual crimes are always difficult to prove, and it isn’t amazing that some of the victims she was talking about have since disappeared or lost touch with a criminal complaint that if anything threatens their safety. I don’t know how many times we need to go through this. Don’t quote her if you don’t want to, but stop calling her untruthful, omg. It is a massive NPOV violation Elinruby (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The consensus of the Ukrainian parliament and 140 Ukrainian media figures is that she made "unverified claims". To cite her without mentioning this is a massive NPOV violation. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

verified is a tricky word. Most sexual assault claims are unverified. The complaints about her job performance centered on other issues, like not taking care of prisoner exchanges. I don’t understand the determination to make this woman out as crazy or a liar. There are plenty of solid secondary sources that rapes occurred. Pick a different rape if you must. It isn’t your job to “verify” these sexual assaults, and frankly with war crimes so thick on the ground in Ukraine I don’t see why you two are obsessed with this. You are making false and possibly libelous statements — not sure if she counts as a public figure — and you really need to stop with the BLP violations. You are misrepresenting the sources as well. Deutsche Welle did not say she was unreliable. That would be libel, since the actual issues cited were pretty different than that. Elinruby (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the reason I am talking about this is because her words do not meet the standards of inclusion in wikipedia without the serious qualification that what she said may not be true. If the information is agreed by everybody unverified, we shouldn't be publishing it without stating this. Denisova has personally admitted to exaggerating her reports for propaganda purposes, so the information she provides has no place in our coverage until a reliable source appears. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with Boynamedsue that Denisova's declarations (unless "qualified" with elaborate and possibly off-topic explanations) don't satisfy a reasonable threshold of notability/inclusion in an article on War crimes: simply put, there's no good reason for having them there, they are not informative enough with regardto the subject of the article. However, I also think that these declarations should be treated as (unreliable) sources. I quote from the essay on interviews linked in my opening comment:

The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. Statements made by interviewees about subjects unrelated to themselves (e.g., the historian interviewed on the radio about local history) are independent and may be either primary or secondary.

This looks crystal-clear and irrefutable to me. Denisova's declarations about sexual violence are a secondary (alas, unreliable) source on war crimes in Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to further this, I think the blistering Ukrainian Pravda article on the debacle says it best: The state of Ukraine, on whose behalf Denisova acted, also became a victim. Yes, her place in office is the responsibility of the state. However, the ombudsman was not authorized to lie. Denisova's story will not succeed and there is no need to silence it. Let it become a clear sign: Ukraine is fighting on the side of truth. We don't need to further demonize the Russians. They themselves coped with this task

People who insist on including her claims in articles other than those directly about her are not doing any favours to the Ukrainian cause, it actually reflects very well on the Ukrainian state that they removed her from her post. --Boynamedsue (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's both surprising and admirable that they have been capable of maintaining a functioning democracy under these circumstances. And it's not in their interest to have these questionable materials published in Wikipedia: one finds out the 25 girls held in a basement in Bucha is a fake (if it is a fake) and one starts wondering if the Bucha massacre has ever happened. Wikipedia should have no part in this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, a few Ukrainian members of Rada said that Denisova, an official Ukrainian ombundswomen at the time, made some statements that could not be supported by proofs, meaning that she only had the claims by victims, some of whom might be even anonymous, so basically this is classic "she said". This is all. No one found her promoting any lies. Hence her statements, as the top Ukrainian human rights official, can be included on any relevant human right pages, with appropriate attribution. Should they be included to specific page X? That should be determined per WP:CONSENSUS on the corresponding page. Speaking on sources above, I would suggest not using this particular publication in Ukrainian Pravda because it was disputed in the next publication in the same Ukrainian Pravda (that political life and controversies in Ukraine are messy, no one really knows why some people have been suddenly dismissed, etc.). Let's just use other, better sources that are many. My very best wishes (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

At this point she has been so vilified that it may be better to simply avoid this argument in my opinion. That doesn’t make it right or mean that Wikipedia should be hosting these inaccurate claims about her. But it isn’t as though there aren’t plenty of war crimes to write about. Elinruby (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I presume that Gitz6666 and Boynamedsue are saying that Denisova made false claims. Well, if that was the case, a state official making false claims is a very common situation. How to deal with this? Exactly as in other cases. Meaning that you need RS (by fact checkers or others) saying that a specific claim was false and explaining why it was false. That was done with regard to many claims by politicians from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. But we have ZERO specific claims by Denisova disproved in this way. All we have are generic claims by others that some her claims were not independently verified. Yes, sure, but this is something also very common and entirely different (see my previous comment here). My very best wishes (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point and I actually agree with you. But let us distinguish the BLP from the BLP elements of the war crimes article, where there is if anything too much material and this argument serves as a shiny object. I find it highly plausible that she has had truthful reports that were anonymous or whose complainants are hard to locate for any of a number of reasons. Nonetheless Ukrainian politics are murky, media ownership is murkier, and the workings of VR Kontacte murkiest of all as I am sure you know much better than I. For purposes of the war crimes article, a reliable secondary source such as the Washington Post or Agence France-Presse reports what it reports and if it hasn’t corrected itself it presumably stands by its reporting. All the OR these guys want to do is completely irrelevant and she herself is peripheral. For purposes of the BLP the firing is huge and definitely should include the media campaign against her. Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I presume that Gitz6666 and Boynamedsue are saying that Denisova made false claims. Please don't make fake assumptions. Alternatively please provide a diff (here or at AE) where I say that she made false claims. I said that she is no longer a reliable source because of the reasons I explained here above in my OP. Your mentioning the case of Trump is completely off topic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

So, you do not think she made false statements? Meaning her statements well could be true (that is what I think)? OK. But then why did you start this thread? My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to state that most of her claims of sexual abuse against children by Russian soldiers are widely believed to be false in Ukraine, both in terms of detail and scale. Her discussion of sexual abuse against women is believed to be incorrect in many details, though probably not scale. As this is the case, an article which is supposed to detail these events should not include her opinions on the matter due to WP:NPOV.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"most of her claims of sexual abuse against children by Russian soldiers are widely believed to be false in Ukraine". Says who? Can you cite any sources to support such assertion? I bet that Ukrainians believe in all crimes by Russians. But in any case, that would be just a matter of public opinion and therefore irrelevant here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Already have, reread the above discussion, by "widely-believed to be false" I mean by the Ukrainian press and political class, the people best placed to know. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

We could quote Zelensky's party We removed her because she failed in her duty as a guarantor. Sometimes she broadcast events which seem very improbable and information whose source is unknown. Or here, from the Ukrainian parliament which criticise her for concentrating on crimes of a sexual nature which can't be confirmed with evidence, damaging Ukraine and distracting the world media from its real needs. Then of course there is this Former Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights Lyudmila Denisova, while in office, made up scary stories about the rape of children by the Russian occupiers. She is simply not reliable for anything other than her own opinions which come under WP:FRINGE at this point. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh noes! I quail before your uncited quotations! Do you understand what a guarantor is? The issues was her priorities, not her truthfulness, and that will be true no matter how many times you pound the table Elinruby (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Come on, we are talking about the sexual abuse of children, perhaps a bit of seriousness is due? The quotes are all attributed and linked to sources you can check. And the meaning of guarantor (of which I am fully aware as I translated from the Italian "garante" in the article) is not central to the meaning of the following sentence "Sometimes she broadcast events which seem very improbable and information whose source is unknown". Now, can you provide any sources which postdate her dismissal, which was, according to the Washington Post, in part for spreading unsubstantiated information on sexual violence, which state that she is a reliable source of information on the topic of sexual violence? --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I do now see the external link in the third quote, so striking that. However my point about “guarantor” is that this is a reference to the evacuation corridors, which some people apparently believe should have put more work into, as opposed to sexual assaults, which are difficult to prove at the best of times. But all this discussion of the reasons for her dismissal is rather peripheral to the actual topic of the article. She was always a primary source and there are a lot of secondary sources, so I find it frustrating that we are repeatedly looping through peripheral events. I think this discussion violates the BLP policy, but to the extent that it can take place accurately and dispassionately, should take place on the talk page of her BLP. Elinruby (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I would point you to the Deutsche Welle coverage. I would also point you to my comment a little further up the thread that *she* is not a source, the *publication doing the reporting* is the source. We’ve already had the question on this noticeboard of reliable sources quoting liars, as you want to imply she is, and it boils down to this — we let the reporters do the reporting, as long as it is published in a reliable source.

If i seem a bit flippant, it’s merely that I have said most of this multiple times already. You realize that we already had a thread about exactly this? I find that in the face of sealioning, varying my vocabulary relieves the monotony and preserves my sanity ;) What you are trying to do is called original research, or possibly synth; I don’t frequent those boards and am not sure.

In any event, *you* need to find *me* a correction about these sexual assaults that says that because Denisova was fired we don’t believe these women were raped. You are the one who wants to make the change; therefore you need to cite it. Elinruby (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

At no point has anybody suggested the removal of claims of sexual assault not stated by Denisova, or stated as fact by other organisations. The source you provide does not state she is reliable, it merely gives background to her sacking, mentioning the criticism that she made unverified claims. Can I take it you now accepts that part of the reason she was sacked was that she made unverified claims? Asking you for evidence when you have provided none so far is not "sealioning" it is how things are supposed to work. -Boynamedsue (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

please re-read what I already said above, more slowly perhaps. Then if still confused take a look at WP:BURDEN. If there is an actual language problem here I am very willing to help. Otherwise I am not willing to repeat myself any further. Elinruby (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you could simply answer the question, I understand everything you have posted but don't find most of it very pertinent to the question at hand. Could you simply state, yes or no, do you accept that Denisova was sacked as the Ukrainian parliament and the Washington Post state, in part, for making unsubstantiated claims of sexual assault? --Boynamedsue (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• She did not make a single provably false claim [10]. Yes, the claims by victims she recorded in her database have not been verified or proven, exactly as the cited sources say. However, this does not make her claims any less reliable than claims by any other Ukrainian officials that have not been independently confirmed, but have been widely reported. What we need here is merely an explicit attribution. Such claims may or may not be included to pages depending on various factors and consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is almost impossible to prove a negative. She did make claims which several hundred Ukrainian journalists and the Ukrainian government state there to be no evidence for. She was then sacked, in part, for making these claims. Claims for which there is no evidence except the statements of one person who was sacked for making them shouldn't be included on the page. I have no problem whatsoever with anything she has said, but which other more credible Ukrainian or international officials still sustain, being included in the article with the claim attributed to them rather than her. --Boynamedsue (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Most outright lies by state officials are easy to catch, see Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. However, not in criminal rape cases, especially if the victims prefer to remain anonymous and frequently do not even bring official charges, and especially during war time. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, in this case she kind of was caught, the Ukrainian government found no evidence to support some of the things she said and sacked her for it. I'm referring specifically to some of the grotesque details regarding abuse of children, there was literally no supporting evidence of any kind. Absolutely nothing. When they interviewed her she told them she was making the claims to help the Ukraine's war effort. Like I've said before, this episode actually shows the Ukrainian authorities in an excellent light, that they are not prepared to tolerate misinformation on rape from their representatives. There is more than enough evidence from reliable individuals and bodies to not have to rely on Denisova for our articles. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Using all available RS on the subject - yes, sure, that is what WP:NPOV requires. Let's do it. But consider the case when such sources (NYT, BBC, etc.) discuss statements by Denisova as Ukrainian ombudsman in any context (positive, negative, whatever). Not only we can, but we actually should cite what these sources say about Denisova and info she provided. This entire discussion is misguided. My very best wishes (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Uanfala (talk · contribs) insists on restoring content sourced to Cambridge Scholars Publishing, because according to them, they aren't predatory and that removing bad sources is 'disruptive'.

I contend that CSP is a vanity press by every meaningful definition of the term. Anyone can publish with them, at no charge, and they do not meaningfully review the submissions. See also previous discussions on CSP and CSP sources

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#Linguist's_history
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#Vanity press (where CSP is mentionned)
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_209#Cambridge_Scholars
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_221#Sources_regarding_Tsamiko_and_Osman_Taka_dances._Do_they_meet_Wikipedia_criteria_for_reliability_?
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_359#Citogenesis incident
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_69#Da_Vinci_Globe

So I would like consensus on whether or not the community considers Cambridge Scholars Publishing to be a reliable publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Cambridge Scholars Publishing)

• I'm pretty sure it's well established by consensus here and reliable sources that it is in fact predatory. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Very obviously unreliable That's not to say we can't ever cite them, but short of a review praising certain works, we shouldn't be citing them. Especially when other sources are already present supporting the material in question. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• unequivocally useless and unreliable per this discussion and the dozens of others. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• I wish Headbomb had started this discussion before using AWB to remove several hundred references and then proceeding to edit-war with several people who have reverted him. Now, CSP are not a predatory publisher, that's not their model (as anyone would immediately notice if they bothered to read anything written about them). Are they a publisher of reliable sources on par with established academic presses like CUP or OUP? Of course they're not. But that doesn't necessarily mean that everything there is rubbish. We should approach them the same way we approach similar publishers, like Lincom: generally discourage their use without prohibiting it, never use them for anything contentious, and for non-contentious statements, evaluate on a case-by-case basis. But blanket removal is disruptive, especially when the articles citing them will often instead use less reliable sources, like newspapers, academia.edu drafts, or actual vanity presses. – Uanfala (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"Are they a publisher of reliable sources? Of course they're not." That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

And there is no disruption, I've removed and reviewed about 300 citations to CSP, which is obviously a predatory/vanity publisher (which loads of prior discussions all agreeing in the same direction). In all cases, the material was supported by other citations, and CSP is not needed and can be summarily removed. We should not be citing unreliable sources, and your restoration of them, knowing full well they are unreliable, is textbook WP:POINTY behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's been pointy to revert two bold semi-automated edits that were justified by the plainly wrong assertion that CSP was predatory. And to repeat and clarify what I wrote on the Kashmiri language talk page, you're proceeding from an incorrect presumption about how references normally relate to article text. If an article paragraph has two refs at its end, this doesn't necessarily mean that either one of those two refs would be enough to support the entirety of that paragraph. More often than not, parts of the text would be supported by one ref, and parts of it by the other. – Uanfala (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments expressed above, particularly as no consensus has been reached here about the publisher. That is the sort of action that should occur after this discussion, not before or during it. As such, I reported it to ANI at WP:ANI#Problematic mass removal of sources by Headbomb.4meter4 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment from an outside perspective, I think both sides have a point here. It seems consensus shows that this publisher is unreliable, but, as Uanfala has pointed out, the citations should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis rather than removed en mass by automation. If a particular source was written by a subject matter expert (which seems to occur occasionally at this publisher), it could still be used. If sources are removed, the relevant content should be examined and new sources found (if possible) or the content should be removed. Simply removing hundreds of sources and leaving someone else to clean up the mess is one way to do things, but in my opinion not the most responsible way. Toadspike (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  There is already a reliable citation for the entirety of this content. That's why it was removed. There remains over 3000 citations to this garbage publisher across Wikipedia. This was not a blanket removal, but a targeted one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  What was the criteria for your targeting of these cases? Ford MF (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  a) It's CSP, which is prima facie unreliable b) Other sources support the content, which makes removal warranted without replacing it with a {{cn}} tag or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  You said "this was not a blanket removal but a targeted one" which I took to mean you had employed some discretion. What does "targeted" in this sentence refer to? Ford MF (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Got it, since you're doing your due diligence you can continue as you were. I apologize for not looking into this too thoroughly yesterday. Toadspike (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  It seems consensus shows that this publisher is unreliable fwiw ... I really don't think it does? Where is this consensus demonstrated? Ford MF (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Now that I have had time to read all the links provided above by Headbomb and Praxidicae, it seems that I was a little hasty in jumping to conclusions and giving the benefit of the doubt. None of the discussions linked show any sort of consensus against using CSP, quite a few are not even evaluations of the reliability or quality of CSP, and one is literally a question which received no responses. Not only does this convince me that CSP is not unreliable per se, but it also convinces me that the language used by the aforementioned editors was rather misleading in stating that anything was "well established by consensus". Toadspike (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I would like consensus on whether or not the community considers I don't have a real horse in this race, but -- as mentioned above -- this seems like a question one should ask before using AWB to mass remove hundreds of citations attributed to this press. Initiating what is essentially a policy decision on your own and then retroactively seeking support for it when people push back does not to me feel like an excessively good faith action. As for what to do with CSP, it seems like WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in this case. I became aware of this issue when I saw Headbomb remove a citation from Apaturia (Greek mythology). In context, the reference there was one of three works (one published by a more reputable academic publisher, Palgrave) citing a particular statement, all of which generally in reference to a primary source (Pausanias). The work in this context was a corroborating citation, in a work published by an ancient history Ph.D., and its removal in this instance does not truly cause harm, but also seems an overly aggressive exercise of policy where no policy actually exists. If this had been the only citation in the article, for whatever reason, I think this specific article would be poorer without it. If we want to have a blanket reliability policy against all works published by CSP, that seems extreme to me given the circumstances, but I think is also a reasonable decision for the community to make. I don't think it's reasonable to unilaterally implement a de facto policy that CSP references are banned unless some editor wants to make their case (see OP's talk page) to the single editor who decided this ought to be policy. Ford MF (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  If you read the above linked discussions, there is clear consensus that it's unreliable and given the fact that it is established fact that it is predatory, policy dictates that it is in fact unreliable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  iiuc this discussion is the measurement of consensus for WP:RSDEPRECATED, so I'm not sure how you can say this has already been decided. Ford MF (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because it has been discussed endlessly here as linked above and the outcome is always the same. There is no point in having these discussions if we're going to rehash them every time someone wants to whine about it's non-use. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  If it had already been decided, I would expect this to be present on WP:DEPRECATED, and it is not. Ford MF (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  ...many sources which are deprecated don't appear there but it doesn't change the fact that for example, Fandom can't be used to source anything that isn't about Fandom isn't on there - but it is never allowed because it is defacto unreliable. This isn't rocket science. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  If there is no canonical source of truth for a policy I would submit that no policy in fact exists. If you're asking me to believe a final decision has been made about a thing, show me that evidence. This isn't rocket science. Looking at the conversations above, most of them contain only fairly glancing reference to the publisher we're discussing here, and the only direct one is six years old. And since the it seems like some relevant things have changed (addition of credited editorial boards, publishers rating in Norwegian Scientific Index upgraded). As I said elsewhere, I don't have any particular stake in this publisher's fate within the Wikipedia project, however I don't think I've seen a single genuine argument advanced here as to why exactly this particular journal ought to be wholesale denylisted from the project. Just a lot of people repeating "vanity press / bad editorial" like a mantra, without any explanation for how these standards are judged. Ford MF (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  You are just being repetitive and missing the point. We have standards that are based in policy surrounding reliability and that does not require an RFC every time a subject is brought up. Of course, you're welcome to make the argument that everything is reliable unless proven otherwise, but you'd be wrong and quickly reverted anywhere you would add such sources. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Which standards are you referring to that CSP violates? Ford MF (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Unreliable, should be prohibited "Are they a publisher of reliable sources? Of course they're not." Chris Troutman (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Vanispamcruft. Unreliable predatory publisher. Kudos to Headbomb for taking on the unpleasant task of removing references to that predatory garbage. --Randykitty (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Unreliable- predatory junk publisher that calls itself Cambridge Scholars so that people will think it's affiliated with Cambridge University. Deceit and trickery, and I would expect very little of anything "published" by them. Reyk _YO! 21:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  I won't disagree that the term "Cambridge" today carries an immediate air of prestige. But there's a lot of places named Cambridge (many founded by people who never cared about the university -- what would the Greeks think?), and any startup company will try to appropriate local prestige. Regardless, from its reported history, they seem to have at least some justification for the name, so there's no reason to call it "deceit". SamuelRiv (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Probably worth pointing out that CSP books are found in a lot of good academic libraries. Harvard Library, for example, has almost 1,900 titles [11] (most of these are print books, not e-books), while the library of Cambridge University itself – hardly to be accused of falling for trickery and not recognising its own publisher – has over 5,000 [12] (a third of which are physical copies). Of course, being available in academic libraries doesn't guarantee reliability, but the numbers above indicate we're not seeing merely the examples of sporadic flotsam and jetsam that big libraries like to keep. Those arguing that the publisher is obviously unreliable, or that it is spamvanwhatever, should really provide evidence for those assertions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  If you want to make a case for the reliability for this or that book published by them, go ahead. But the default position for a vanity publisher with poor editorial oversight should be against inclusion. Reyk _YO! 22:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  As someone new to the discourse on this particular publisher, I see a lot of assertions that they *are* "a vanity publisher with poor editorial oversight", and relatively little to back that up, other than a seeming implicit conviction that this is self-evident. Ford MF (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  So...a publisher that solicits non-qualified "academics" for publication and then charges them for publication is what, exactly? Also please feel free to identify their editorial board. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  https://cambridgescholars[.]com/pages/meet-our-editorial-advisors. Ford MF (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also, where is the source for your assertion that its portfolio consists of unqualified writers? And why is academics in quotation marks? Ford MF (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Have you read any of the sources linked in the article about CSP? It's pretty adequately covered there. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Praxidicae, if there is any source about the claim that CSP charge authors for publication, then please provide it. I don't see that in any of the sources I've checked. – Uanfala (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have! As far as I can tell there are only two references in the entire article that support the "predatory" label. One is the beallslist.net reference, and the other is the guy who runs Flaky Academic Journals dot blogspot dot com. The Flaky Academic Journals guy ... I mean, okay. Some guy with a blogspot made one post about this five years ago, but more recent posts from bloggers of seeming equal standing seem to represent an opinion contrary to this. The beallslist thing is interesting to me! But 1) it looks like the list itself is not without detractors, and CSP was anonymously added to it as an addendum after the original list was abandoned by Jeffrey Beall, *and* even if Jeffrey Beall did think CSP sucked, there is no evidence he thought those titles should not be carried as part of a reputable academic collection. And in fact, as demonstrated above, very reputable and notable academic librarians *do* believe that a non-trivial number of CSP publications belong in their collection. Ford MF (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Again, if you want to make a case for the reliability of some individual book, go ahead. It is, however, not possible to say, "It's in CSP therefore it is reliable". The default position should be that it is questionable at best. Reyk _YO! 23:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Can you explain why this is the default position? So far I do not see you making any argument or listing any criteria for this assessment. You've made a claim that the press is "predatory" and "vanity", and implicitly that that means citations from these works should be unilaterally deleted from the project, and imho the onus is not on others to mount a counter-argument to this when the claimant(s) have not in fact mounted any argument at all, only simply repeated the original claims as if they were already established as true. Ford MF (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because CSP is a vanity press and utter garbage. See all previous discussions, Beall's list, flaky journals, etc. And on Wikipedia, when we encounter a garbage source, the default is to exclude it, unless it can be shown to not be garbage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. If someone reads through all those previous discussions and still comes to the conclusion that CSP is reliable then nothing will ever convince them otherwise. Fortunately, WP:CONSENSUS is policy. Reyk _YO! 00:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Making decisions by consensus is policy. Asserting that your position is the consensus one without some independent demonstration of this is not a policy as far as I'm aware. The closer [ie the decider of consensus] is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument. WP:DISCARD There are by my count three people on this thread advancing the position "CSP is a predatory vanity press" (with the implication that citations for works from this press should by default be disallowed) but I do not see one single argument made in support of that position, only insistence that the position is prima facie true, or insistence that the position has already reached consensus in this or that other place, like the princess continually being in another castle. And there are two editors who seem to disagree with this position and/or believe that he burden of proof is on the people making the claim, and that has not been satisfied. This does not look like consensus to me. Other folks may feel otherwise. Ford MF (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's clear that you're determined that CSP should be treated as a priori reliable, the same way that Cambridge University Press, or Springer, or Addison-Wesley are respected academic publishers. My position is that the deliberately misleading name raises questions about their academic integrity, that actual academics in a good position to judge have verifiably described them as sketchy, that there are numerous documented instances of poor quality control, and that they are not up-front with authors about how little quality control they do. All these concerns have been brought up in the previous discussions linked to by Headbomb. Why are you so eager to dismiss them? The current status quo here on Wikipedia is that CSP is not super trustworthy, IMO correctly, and if you think they are suddenly legit then you need to make that case. Reyk _YO! 00:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  • My position is that the deliberately misleading name ... I disagree that the publisher's name is admissible as evidence of the publisher's quality one way or the other. The website claims the company was founded, in Cambridge, by lecturers from Cambridge U -- literally, Cambridge Scholars -- and I haven't seen anyone disprove or even question this, just a lot of people assuming, as you seem to be doing here, that the name has nefarious intent.
  • actual academics in a good position to judge have verifiably described them as sketchy There seem to be other academics, in equivalently good position, who do not agree with this assessment.
  • Numerous documented instances of poor quality control Definitely agree it looks like they've published a couple of crappy books over the years.
  • They are not up-front with authors about how little quality control they do. I do not see the source of this claim in the discussions above?
  • The current status quo here on Wikipedia is that CSP is not super trustworthy again, there is a repeated insistence that this consensus already exists and has been decided previously, when I do not feel like any of the referenced conversations demonstrate this at all.

  Ford MF (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I also feel like you are proposing an entirely false binary here in which there exist no scholarly presses between Lulu[.]com and Springer Verlag, and every press must be one or the other. I am not trying to argue that this press deserves a position among Springer, AW, CUP, etc etc. As a former academic-book-biz guy in a past life, I think it's safe to say they'd be pretty far down on my list when it came time to place orders. I *do* however disagree that the correct response in the project to an obviously not A-list publisher is for citations to be default deleted on sight. Ford MF (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  There exists presses in between. CSP is, however, on the Lulu side of things, not on the CUP/Springer side of things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I take your response to mean you are applying no independent criteria of your own or the project's, and are using those of Beall's list and the flaky journals guy as proxies here. That's reasonable! You can't do direct due diligence on everything personally. But I think I have clearly described why neither of these sources seem like open and shut cases to me (reasonable people seem to disagree about Beall's list, CSP wasn't even on it until anonymous inclusion fairly recently, the Flaky blog guy article is pretty old), especially when measured against the countervailing opinions here (other, more positive blogs; reputable academic libraries holding sizeable amounts of CSP in circulation; reputable review organizations like Norwegian Scientific Index changing their rating of the press). So you keep repeating "vanity press" and "garbage" without making reference to any criteria the could be reviewed or falsified, and, well, I don't think it's surprising that other people might not find this a persuasive argument? (Or an argument at all?) Ford MF (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Have you read any of the previous discussions? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have any arguments to make other than to tell me that in some vague and nonspecific place, someone else makes an argument to justify your claims? Ford MF (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  The discussions are linked above. There is nothing vague or unspecific about them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Publishers are one component of evaluating a reliable source. Look at the author, editors, etc. What kind of claim is being made? Is it controversial? Generally opposed to any mass removal based just on publisher without an evaluation of the actual source in context, and generally opposed to proposals to consider a book publisher unreliable without a systematic evaluation of the kind/quality of content they publish. A predatory publisher (and there is a wide spectrum of "predatory") is a red flag, but isn't itself completely disqualifying. Some predatory publishers are the equivalent of just being self-published (and not less than self-published), but there are many flavors/degrees. Meh. Default to standard editing practices like BRD and ONUS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • No, with real predatory publishers, and real vanity publishers, whatever "real" is here, it should be the other way around: discredited until a particular article/book by a particular scholar can be deemed acceptable. So, I'll accept this Mellen book on Beowulf for a variety of reasons that I could explain. But in general, a publisher that produces this should not be taken seriously--until proven otherwise. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Sure, when challenged, the onus is always on those who want to include a source to argue that it's reliable for that particular use (and otherwise justify inclusion), but we need a clear consensus about unreliability to remove just based on the publisher -- unreliability, not just predatory. The latter just means it's on a spectrum between WP:SPS and rigorous review/oversight, with the "real" ones at or near the former, but that whatever "real" is here is a toughy, and it seems too often the spectrum is collapsed to a binary. These conversations often look like we're talking about publishers known for false/misleading information, not ones that simply tend towards the WP:SPS side of the spectrum. CSP may be well on that SPS side, but that doesn't mean it's "discredited"; it means it's self-published. Self-published sources aren't discredited; based on the author, for example, there are plenty of times when we use them. They're just not sufficiently reliable for most purposes. Maybe we're getting into semantics with that distinction, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• I looked at all the linked discussions, and I have some thoughts about CSP (none of them are very good), but I fail to see that any of the discussions came to a clear consensus that CSP is an unreliable vanity press. And without that, we're kind of putting the cart before the horse. First we need clarity here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  CSP is a vanity press. Their model is to have authors write whatever they want, conduct no review, offer no little-to-no editing services, and then charges universities and random suckers for those books. They've repeatedly published fringe nonsense, (example, example), or straight up copies of Wikipedia content example). They are listed by the two main freely available sources on predatory nonsense, Beall's list (now maintained by someone who isn't Beall), and Flaky Journals. Their books are widely condemned in review, which specifically call out the practices of CSP (e.g. "the absence of an editorial board has clearly failed to guide the author in the preparation of his publication". Library Guides specifically call out CSP as a publisher to avoid [13]. Or entire book chapters, from ISBN 9783838211992. If CSP isn't a vanity press and a garbage tier publisher, no one is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  The Flaky Journals blog [14], though critical of CSP, does not characterise them as predatory. Your last link (the bit form the Scopus diaries) is also worth reading: it's explicit that vanity or predatory publishers are a lower tier than CSP, and it characterises CSP's drawback in not conferring a great deal of academic prestige.

  Their books are widely condemned in review? Well, I've had a look. Here's quotes from the reviews I checked (all except 4 (3 were excluded because of genre (popular science, memoirs), and 1 because it was as dry overview without a quotable conclusion):

  1. Di Rocco, Concezio (2019-11-01). "R. Shane Tubbs, J. Iwanaga, M. Loukas, R. J. Oskouian (Eds): Clinical anatomy of the ligaments of the craniocervical junction". Child's Nervous System. 35 (11): 2241–2241. doi:10.1007/s00381-019-04261-6. ISSN 1433-0350. "the book is a precious contribution to the understanding of all aspects of the craniocervical junction which should not only be part of the armamentarium of the neurosurgeon involved in clinical practice but also of the students and neurosurgeons in training"
  2. Carey, Peter (2021). "Manual of Bone Marrow Examination by Anwarul Islam (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020; ISBN 978-1-5275-5890-8)". British Journal of Haematology. 193 (5): 1016–1016. doi:10.1111/bjh.17400. ISSN 1365-2141. "an excellent teaching resource for every haematology department"
  3. Kapparis, Konstantinos (2019). "Isaeus' On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3). Edited by Rosalia Hatzilambrou. (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018. Pp. 283. $119.95.)". Historian. 81 (4): 727–729. doi:10.1111/hisn.13286. ISSN 1540-6563. "an outstanding accomplishment containing reliable, informative, and thorough accounts of textual, linguistic, and stylistic matters, as well as the legal issues, the background, the protagonists, and the build-up of the case"
  4. Farrell Moran, Seán (2016). "The Impact of World War One on Limerick. By Tadhg Moloney. (Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013. Pp. xii, 209. $75.99.)". Historian. 78 (1): 166–167. doi:10.1111/hisn.12142. ISSN 1540-6563. "Although the author has done much homework, his thesis, as suggestive as it is, remains underdeveloped"
  5. Spicher, Michael (2019). "AAGAARD-MOGENSEN, LARS and JAN FORSEY, eds. On Taste: Aesthetic Exchanges. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019, 150 pp., 4 b&w illus., £58.99 cloth". The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 77 (3): 349–351. doi:10.1111/jaac.12655. ISSN 1540-6245. "Overall, [the book] offers insightful discussions about taste to help bring it back onto the fore. I would recommend anyone interested in aesthetics to read this collection as an entry point into recent thought about taste"
  6. McClain, Aleksandra (2016). "From West to East: Current Approaches to Medieval Archaeology by Scott D. Stull, ed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014. 275 pp". American Anthropologist. 118 (2): 457–458. doi:10.1111/aman.12571. ISSN 1548-1433. "Several papers, including the editor's own, offer strong, original scholarship [...] but a few are disappointingly underdeveloped in comparison", "while problems with individual papers mar the consistent academic quality of the volume, I nevertheless commend Stull on having the ambition to plan the conference and produce this book"
  7. Liu, Yi; Afzaal, Muhammad (2022). "100 Years of conference interpreting: A legacy. Edited by Kilian G. Seeber, Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Newcastle upon Tyne, 2021, Price: £64.99, 242 pp. ISBN: 1-5275-6719-2". International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 32 (2): 349–352. doi:10.1111/ijal.12406. ISSN 1473-4192. "this volume provides a novel and convincing reference in the field of conference interpreting, and is therefore a valuable read for interpreting students, trainers, researchers and other stakeholders"
  8. Wallis, Patrick (2021). "Andrea Caracausi, Matthew Davies, and Luca Mocarelli, eds., Between regulation and freedom: work and manufactures in European cities 14th–18th centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018. Pp. xiii+146. ISBN 1-5275-0638-X Hbk. £58.99)". The Economic History Review. 74 (1): 299–300. doi:10.1111/ehr.13059. ISSN 1468-0289. "the volume collectively makes a valuable contribution to our appreciation of the complexity and heterogeneity of economic regulation"

  Of these 8 reviews, 6 are entirely positive, and 2 offer criticisms. – Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Reviews are going to give a biased sample of CSP's output, because only the books that people found interesting enough to review will have any. XOR'easter (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Of course, as with any other reivews. But what's the relevance of that here? If someone wants to do a big analysis and look at the proportion of reviewed CSP books vs. the total published and then compare that with the same ratio for benchmark publishers, sure: that will be useful. But in the context of this discussion – where the baseline question is whether CSP books are unadulterated crap that should be automatically removed from articles – I think it was useful to point out that there were plenty of reviews of those books in the best journals and that most of those reviews were positive. – Uanfala (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose a blanket removal, but recommend a "use with caution" guideline per WP:MREL. Some of the authors published by CSP are respectable academics in their fields with other publications from reliable publishers written by them. As such, WP:SPS's guideline seems like a good fit here. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Further, some of the books have been reviewed in reliable secondary sources. So, I think each source needs to be scrutinized individually for reliability with particular attention given to the book's author and their background. Removing content on mass without taking the time to examine each source and its author is not the responsible way to handle this issue, and seems WP:POINTY.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose blanket removal, recommend "use with caution". Various publication level rankings (Norwegian, Finnish) list the venue as an acceptable quality scientific publication venue, albeit with an imperfect history. This alone gives me much pause about a blanket ban. Above descriptions about the publishers being predatory also seems confusing, given that the venue does not appear to charge Article Publishing Charges based on their FAQ. As per the above descriptions re: the Beall's List entry (anonymous, added after Beall's involvement), I'm not terribly convinced by that argument either. Given further that WP:SPS allows for the use of pretty much anything from an established subject matter expert, a blanket removal seems unwarranted. That said, the spotty history clearly warrants a case-by-case review of any sources used. -Ljleppan (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment In addition to what I wrote above, I'll note that this RFC fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL rather spectacularly. Ljleppan (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Cambridge Scholars Press is not someone I'd consider an acceptable academic publisher - so what that means is that I would try to avoid citing anything published by them, as I have no confidence that their peer review process has been sufficiently robust to detect material which has errors, is not accurate or which is fraudulent in nature (as evidenced by some of the material they have published, including material plagiarised from Wikipedia). I would also not use the company as a publishing house for my own work, because I cannot trust what other works may appear alongside our own, and obviously if I consider it to be problematic, people would question anything I publish there.
  Books published by CSP primarily, from what I can see, are typically submitted via the CSP route for two reasons, firstly they're submitted there to satisfy funding requirements (as is the case with books and articles published via Wiley, Elsevier and others, of course) but they have a strong reputation in academic circles as a publisher of last resort - if you can't get a book into a more prestigious publishing house or journal series, then CSP will take it and it'll technically tick off a deliverable so you don't lose funding or have someone chasing you to return part of a grant. Secondly, almost all of us are vain and want to publish - for many fields, that involves doing an experiment or undertaking a project, generating data, processing that data and generating results, which are then discussed. That's the broad outline for a journal article. There are many fields where research doesn't work like that and a book is the logical outcome, particularly where your research is one contiguous body of work during a PhD or for a number of years post-doctorate, unfortunately for a number of people with such contiguous projects, their work will generally be of interest to a small number of people and publishing via an accepted academic publisher (Wiley or others) will not be possible (that isn't a comment on the value or importance of the work, just a reflection on what the large publishing houses will accept because it makes them money). I say this as it explains the peer review issues - if you can't get a conventional publisher interested in your book because of audience limitation issues, it's going to be very difficult to find reviewers who are capable of a proper peer review of your material, which risks absolute drivel making it onto the market. It's also worth noting, the presence of CSP material in university libraries is no indicator of their reliability - most university libraries will purchase material at the behest of students - I drop a request into our library every year or so for a new book either I would like to read, or which I think will benefit our students. I note a comment about CSP and the University of Cambridge Library - it's worth a reminder that the University of Cambridge Library is a deposit library and can receive at no cost any books published in the UK that it wishes - it does not necessarily mean the University of Cambridge Library or students from Cambridge have asked for/purchased CSP books.
  I'd therefore have to agree with the "use with caution" suggestion - there will be a number of authors with CSP who have been forced to publish there by circumstance, and there will be little wrong with their work, but similarly, there's a lot of authors who will make use of CSP's tendency to accept anything with no real oversight, which would obviously preclude its use going unchecked. Nick (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Never use. Reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, etc.; this publisher has a reputation as shite. No source from it can give confidence that WP:V is being satisfied. Anything worthy of inclusion will be covered in decent sources; use then instead. If not, the material will not be the kind of “accepted knowledge” Wikipedia must reflect. Alexbrn (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose blanket removal, support replacing with better sources. I looked at a few random articles with references to CSP and I didn't see any problems requiring a purge. Tagging with {{bettersourceneeded}} would be a good idea. Alaexis_¿question? 11:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Drive by tagging while keeping the sources in never works, it will just stay there forever, just ask @David Gerard:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion it's not a positive example. Alaexis_¿question? 17:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Never use If there are clearly reliable sources supporting the text you are trying to source, use that. If there aren't any other than a CSP source you shouldn't be adding the text. One book from a dubious publisher isn't enough.
• Comment. I did what several folks insisted on and read the previous discussions. None of them established a consensus that CSP is unreliable; most of them weren't even really about CSP. Let's put a pin in that claim--CSP may be unreliable, but this is the first discussion where that question is squarely presented and proceeding as though that's already the case is not accurate. Mackensen (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• CSP can be a reliable source as demonstrated by reviews from the academic community, eg:

  "In sum, From West to East provides a compact, but very readable overview of approaches to medieval archaeology practised in North America." Kerr, Sarah (January 2016). "From West to East. Current Approaches to Medieval Archaeology". Medieval Archaeology. 60 (1): 185–185. doi:10.1080/00766097.2016.1147856.

  "the volume is a worthwhile read and valuable resource that paves the way to refine the studies on this, without doubt, an exceedingly promising multidisciplinary topic." Basik, Sergei (19 October 2020). "Naming, identity and tourism: edited by Luisa Caiazzo, Richard Coates and Maoz Azaryahu, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020, 233 pp., ₤ 61.99 (hardcover), ISBN 978-1-5275-4286-0". Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism. 20 (5): 540–542. doi:10.1080/15022250.2020.1853603.

  "Overall, this is an interesting take on a fairly well-covered topic. It brings to light some hitherto neglected sources and provides some useful insights" Doney, Jonathan (4 March 2022). "For God and country: Butler's 1944 Education Act, by Elizabeth 'Libi' Sundermann: Elizabeth 'Libi' Sundermann, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015, xii + 151 pp., £41.99 (hardback), ISBN 978-1-44-388383-2". History of Education. 51 (2): 304–306. doi:10.1080/0046760X.2020.1825834.,

  "the book serves as a door opener to the ceramic traditions of Europe and opens up further reading due to interesting articles as well as rich reference lists" Eigeland, Lotte; Solheim, Steinar (10 September 2010). "Dragos Gheorghiu (ed.): Early Farmers, Late Foragers, and Ceramic Traditions: On the Beginning of Pottery in the Near East and Europe". Norwegian Archaeological Review. 43 (1): 86–89. doi:10.1080/00293651003798846.

Richard Nevell (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it can be reliable. Much like vixra or the Daily Mail can be reliable. However, when we don't have these positives reviews, CSP books are not reliable. That's no different than any other vanity presses out there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source that describes CSP as a vanity press? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

See book chapters, from ISBN 9783838211992. They don't explicitly list CSP as a vanity press, but press much say you should only publish with them if you're comfortable publishing in a vanity press. Alternatively, this library guide, which goes further and labels them predatory. Again, the model of CSP is to publish pretty much anything they can with little regards to what it is they publish. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Headbomb, the chapter you've linked has two things to say about CSP: 1) that publishing there isn't going to earn you the respect of fellow academics, and 2) that vanity presses have lower academic prestige than the likes of CSP. I really don't know how that text made you conclude that CSP are described there as a vanity press, when in fact the opposite is the case. The library guide you link only quotes an email sent by CSP as an example of a "predatory conference letter" without giving further commentary. That's a bit odd to begin with (the email is clearly soliciting book proposals, not advertising conferences), but the characterisation as predatory is incorrect. Yes, CSP have been criticised for their unselective solicitation emails (a practice in common with actual predatory publishers), but they themselves are not predatory (because they don't charge authors), that much I thought had already been established in this discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Predatory encompasses a spectrum of terrible practices. Spamming emails is one of them, because they're preying on the young and foolish to submit their work for free, so Cambridge can exploit these people and make money off their back. They're a print-on-demand vanity press. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

In that case I would recommend not pushing beyond the bounds of what reliable sources say. On the subject of whether CSP is predatory this article in Science as Culture is an interesting read. My own view is that the situation is not as black and white as you are presenting it. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a damning picture of CSP. High-volume with little-to no review output to maximize profits, spamming campaigns (but it's nice, personalized spam!), specifically reaching out to people who wouldn't be able to publish fringe viewpoints anywhere else. These all the characteristics of a well-organized vanity press. It's only better than Lambert because CSP is better organized and better at PR. Note that the article specifically is less concerned "... judging the quality of the monographs Lambert and CSP were publishing than in their negotiation of existing credibility economies, with the elite university presses at their apex". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

In one instance an academic listed on a CSP editorial board replied to insist that she did not know she was listed as an editor. Whoops. XOR'easter (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

In my experience they're not even that careful with their personalised spam. I once received an unsolicited email from them in which they got both my first name and employer wrong, quite the howler as my email address at the time was firstname.j.lastname@institute.com, asking me to contribute something quite outside my area. They're sloppy, period. I have tried over the years to defend this encyclopedia from those who want to turn it into viXra with a side of TVTropes, but I think I'm done. I have other things I want to be doing and it no longer seems worth the effort, especially seeing a few editors who really ought to know better defending this manipulative garbage. If that's how it's going to be then I'm outta here. Reyk _YO! 01:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh they're not. It's a spam operation after all. I'm just going by what the source said. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Reyk: I think most editors here harbor similar feelings towards CSP and their likes as you do. At least speaking for myself, I have no inclination whatsoever to defend CSP or their unethical practices. I just don't think immorality is inherited, so to speak: it's not because some scholars who-knows-for-what-reason have published there that their work should automatically be discarded and ignored. More importantly for Wikipedia, that work may be of very high quality, and there are certainly some cases where it would constitute a major loss not to cite it. We need to look to reliability as such first, not morality. I just hope that even if you don't agree, you don't let this drive you away. We are by and large on the same side here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Question: why not treat as self-published? I've occasionally come over this publisher when following citations and bibliographies in high-quality sources, and my impression is that competent scholars do sometimes publish there. For example, this is mainly authored by top scholars, this is also good quality, and this contains contributions by absolute top scholars like G. E. R. Lloyd, as well as lesser stars like Helen King or Mario Vegetti, who are still scholars of the highest rank. This is not like a news source where authors are anonymous: apart from the publisher, there is also the scholar and their academic reputation to take into account. It's also probably not a coincidence that I just named three edited volumes: these by definition have editorial oversight. Use with caution, certainly, but outright banning seems like a bad idea. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Add as this seems to be a separate issue: also oppose blanket or semi-automated removal, per the arguments of Visviva and No such user below. It's tempting to just remove everything published by a company whose practices are unethical, but when one is not engaging with the content the reference is supposed to verify, it's far too easy to break text-source integrity, and it's too difficult to fully anticipate other negative consequences which may not outweigh the advantage gained by removing an unethical publisher. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  No one is proposing outright banning. Like with any other vanity press, when a CSP book is accompanied by a positive review, it can be used as a reliable SPS source. Absent of those, CSP books are inadequate as sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, a positive review would be a very good indication that a SPS or equivalent is reliable. But why require it? In my experience, the status of the scholar in their field is a far more important indicator for reliability than the reputation of the publisher. On the other hand, not every high-quality volume gets reviewed. For example, of the three books I mentioned above, I found (very) positive reviews for the first two ([15] for [16] and [17] for [18]), but for the third one –arguably the one with the best scholars– I did not find a review. Should we treat a book chapter by someone like G. E. R. Lloyd (please have a look at where he usually publishes) as unreliable because it has a bad publisher and there happens to be no review? I at least think we shouldn't. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because vanity presses are crap and are by definition not reliable (which is different than being guaranted to be wrong). It's the same if a 'good' scholar publishes in predatory journal. They've dodged the reviewing process, and they don't get a free pass. See WP:VANPRED#Use in the real world vs use on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  I find it by no means credible that the three volumes I cited above were dodging peer-review. As edited volumes, they also enjoyed at least some form of editorial oversight. This is simply not vanity publishing: all of the scholars involved could easily have published elsewhere, and have in fact done so often (again, see here). The positive reviews also indicate that. This all rather shows that CSP cannot be treated as predatory without a case-by-case evaluation. Speaking of evaluation, the essay you're citing is using self-published primary sources to prove a point that editors can't evaluate any self-published sources without engaging in original research... But here on this noticeboard we are going to evaluate (secondary) sources, and as many have pointed out above, the publisher is only one factor in the equation. As someone also said above, we should avoid putting the cart before the horse. Let's first see whether CPS is a vanity press, shall we? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose blanket removal. I don't see CSB as being in anyway different from self-published sources, which may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. The discussion has proven that CSB occasionally publishes works that qualify as reliable sources either because written by well-reputed academics or because accepted as valuable scientific contributions by the academic community; there's no reason for removing them for the sole reason that they were published by CSB. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose blanket removal - I'm not convinced that this publisher is as some have claimed in blanket statements relative to predatory, unreliable, etc. It would be wonderful if all publishers had experts in every field of academia comprising their editorial boards, and while we strive for RS, it's rather ironic that WP itself is considered an unreliable source - in part, because of perceived systemic biases. CSB states on their about page: We are proud of our reputation for author satisfaction. The publishing process should be a rewarding experience. There is no cost to our authors/editors to publish. We offer complimentary copies, a substantial author discount, and a generous royalty scheme. Atsme 💬 📧 15:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose blanket removal The sources given above seem to be quite clear in showing that CSP does publish valuable academic books (even if it's despite themselves, rather than because of themselves). And the repeated attempts above to claim them as a vanity publisher and then, when that statement is refuted by actual sources directly saying they're not as bad as that, the original people making the vanity claim then not responding or addressing those sources makes said original claimants look like they're purposefully trying to avoid engaging with the subject and are on the verge of lying. Clearly, this is not a vanity publisher, it is not a predatory publisher, it's open publishing blatantly just makes it fall under self-published sources and any books from it should be treated as such around the importance of the author. Silverseren^C 17:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose removal to echo User:Alaexis above. I agree that {{better source needed}} should be added instead of removal with |reason= "Cambridge Scholars is considered unreliable per WP:RSN" or something similar. To address the counterarguments: regardless of whether the page editors address the tag in a timely manner or not, it's there for the reader to see if they are verifying content. Even though it appears that Headbomb is only removing Cambridge Scholars material in multi-sourced contexts, that is still problematic if the remainirial is not checked that it is still verified in the remaining source, and there is no tag like {{please verify that I didn't remove something important because I'm too busy to do it myself}} Sorry to editorialize but that does reflect my interpretation sometimes.) I don't get the edit-warring either -- One thing this page teaches is that the reliability of sources needs to be interpreted in context, so if the editors who have been maintaining a page for months disagree with your agnostic source removal, maybe they have a reason, and picking a fight over an article you haven't read maybe isn't the most constructive use of everyone's time. Of course that is an entirely separate issue from whether Cambridge Scholars should have different considerations as far as reliability, but apparently we're trying to have both conversations at once here. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Treat as self-published. Which in most cases should mean removal as unreliable, but we can use it if we can determine that the author is an established subject-matter expert. Why an established subject-matter expert would be using such a publisher, rather than just directly self-publishing if self-publishing is what they want, is another question, but not one we need to answer here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Treat as self-published and go ahead with blanket removal, restoring on a case-by-case basis when an argument can be made to do so. {{better source needed}} tags hang around and don't get resolved until somebody pushes. XOR'easter (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Other relevant past discussions: a failed Featured Article nomination where CSP was called a quite dodgy publisher that is just this side of self-publishing; a deletion debate where the closer wrote that they ave an extremely poor reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight and are on some versions of Beall's List so this source is marginal at best. In this discussion, which also ended in a delete, the possibility was raised that they've made some sort of bulk e-book deal for academic libraries which ends up boosting their WorldCat holdings numbers. XOR'easter (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose blanket removal, but "use with caution" sounds about right, based on the edifying discussions above. Regarding removals, with respect to the edits that led to this RFC, I think it's worth noting that even when multiple citations appear after a statement, it can't be assumed that all of them support all of the statement. There are all sorts of common scenarios where this isn't the case -- classic citation overkill where it may turn out that none of the sources cited fully support the statement, or where only one of them turns out to; a compound sentence where the sources each support different parts of the sentence; a source added by a well-intentioned editor to support their edit but without removing the previous source that no longer supports the sentence; etc. (None of those are best practices, but they happen all the time.) Ultimately questions like "is this citation load-bearing? can it be relied on in this particular context for this particular statement? even if it is reliable and load-bearing, can we replace it with something better?" can only be addressed by engaging in depth with the sources and subject matter of that specific article. There are no rule-based shortcuts. -- Visviva (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Treat as self-published. I came here following a brief edit-war with Headbomb on Othonoi. [19] is probably a typical case: there's a citation to a Greek-language journal accompanied by a citation to an English-language book published in CSP by the same authors, conveniently available on GBooks and easy to verify. Blanket removal of CSP books written by scholarly authors is disruptive, and publisher is only one factor to consider the source's reliability. No such user (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose automated removal, treat as self-published although I'm a bit late in "voting", due to the number of concerns raised by other editors, it is clear to me that any automated removal does not consitute due diligence. Even removing CSP sources where another source is provided seems unneccessary - variations on "it's garbage", with little to back up such strong language, are not enough to justify any contentious action on Wikipedia. CSP is not unreliable per se, arguments for which have been expounded at length above. Additionally, due to the changing (and possibly improving) situation with regard to editorial practices, deprecation or any blanket statement of unreliability requires stronger and more recent evidence than has been provided. Toadspike (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support blanket removal vanity press, etc yes, but if we can't find better sources than that's a basic problem that means the text probably shouldn't be there anyway. This means removal would require searching for a better source. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal and prohibit it, unequivocally useless and unreliable Totally agree with above users that it is vanity press. Have seen multiple promotional junk about Indian cults from this publisher on Wikipedia.--Venkat TL (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Cuepoint Medium publication reliability

There has been some disagreement over whether the Medium music publication Cuepoint, which is edited by Jonathan Shecter, directly owned by (the platform) Medium itself, and routinely featured a column by longtime music journalist Robert Christgau, is considered a reliable source. This was most recently raised at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/1989 (Taylor Swift album)/addition1. This publication does not have an entry at WP:RSMUSIC nor RSP. The publication appears to have gone dormant in 2016 but is routinely used in Taylor Swift related articles.

Is Cuepoint a reliable source for music industry coverage?

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

TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey (Cuepoint)

• Optoin 2. Reasoning below. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2: usability depends on the writer (and the fact/opinion being cited). The column by Christgau is definitely a reliable source. For other authors, take a look at their other writing background (e.g. on MuckRack). If they're even just a little-known reviewer who has written for sources that would be reliable for the information you're trying to cite, I'd take it as reliable. That Shecter edits Cuepoint counts for something. — Bilorv (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2, mostly per previous respondents that it depends on the reviewer's qualifications. Medium is generally unreliable, per RSP, As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. I don't see clear editorial policies here, but I think (I don't know much about the music industry, so sorry) the well-known journalist Robert Christgau is a very famous subject-matter expert and is probably reliable (Option 1). Others who apeeared in credible journalist outlets or other RS are IMO generally reliable (but I think better refs could be found, still, it's passable). Looking at the prose quality, there are long, detailed articles, but also short, maybe superficial articles, and they could rely a lot on Twitter and other social media posts. Contrasting with this, niche reviewers and contributors that hasn't written much in other RS would probably be considered generally unreliable (Option 3) IMO. VickKiang (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Cuepoint)

• I believe Cuepoint can be used sparsely. Robert Christgau is a very regarded music journalist, so basically, anything he says goes. So if they have an article written by someone that has a journalism degree and/or has written for other publications it will be fine to use. However, if none of these conditions are met the article is better not used, as Medium is deemed as an unreliable source and Cupoint belongs to it. However, some pieces are written by musicians, such as Mark Ronson, which seem fine, at first glance, to use as he discusses his personal experience with George Michael, but it shouldn't be used to give a certain song(s) a review. It should be used like Sound on Sound is used and other magazines alike. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  @MarioSoulTruthFan: Thank you for your explanation. Just to clarify, "Medium is deemed as an unreliable source" because it can be used to publish your own blog (etc). The difference here though is that this publication on medium had reputable editorial control and appears to fall outside of the WP:MEDIUM RSP entry's coverage area. It is "self-published" in the same (philosophical) way that The New York Times or Rolling Stone are -- it simply isn't the same thing as the Medium entry's coverage. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I forgot to add this in but it is a key point that just dawned on me. An analogy here is how WordPress is considered unreliable but sites running WordPress can be (i.e. Variety, Global News, and Time). WordPress -- or Medium in this case -- is just the platform. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I see. But is also deemed as unreliable as it is a mirror source, so it copies from other sources and publishes those articles as if they were their originals. Nevertheless, the other conditions are still the same. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  @MarioSoulTruthFan: I am confused. What is considered a mirror source? Where did you see that/get that from? I don’t see that listed at the RSP entries for either WordPress or Medium? TheSandDoctor (mobile) (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm saying it is a mirror website, it copies articles from other websites. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Like all sources...WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - and they do have some expert authors writing material, but keep the following in mind: their website: We’re an open platform where over 100 million readers come to find insightful and dynamic thinking. Here, expert and undiscovered voices alike dive into the heart of any topic and bring new ideas to the surface. Our purpose is to spread these ideas and deepen understanding of the world. They are as much a RS as is WP. Atsme 💬 📧 03:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Highly recommended: User:Headbomb/unreliable and User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js. You may not have to come here as often. Atsme 💬 📧 03:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Atsme: Again, these are two different things as I've already explained. This is for the Cuepoint publication that happens to be on the website Medium (see my above comments) but has reputable editorial control etc. as already described; this is not for the entirety of Medium and is a very specific question/scope. This essentially makes the website page you linked to moot/not relevant. I am also aware of Headbomb's script and use it, but I came here with this RfC because others had raised a point worth considering and isn't covered by Headbomb's script per se; this was also filed for the benefit of resolving a dispute that was ongoing (to which I was not an involved party). It doesn't really matter to me which way this goes, I just don't like seeing things misunderstood in the backstory and question being asked (that I thought was extremely straightforward) and work to get us all on the same page. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Understood, but please consider the following: To contribute, please email your Medium “draft link” or published piece to our EIC: shecky@cuepointmusic.com. Shecky is also the Director of Programming for the Wynn in Las Vegas. Cuepoint EIC is not his dedicated position in life. Look at the long list of contributors on their about page, and compare their writers and format to say...Mojo, Rolling Stone, or Sports Illustrated for example. Frankly, the difference between Cuepoint and the overall Medium site is minimal. A group of Wikipedia editors, a few with some expert credentials or experience in a particular market niche could create a standalone website for their area of interest in much the same way using WP articles to launch it, solicit the contributions of WP editors at the expert level. Would that make it an unquestionable RS? Do you consider the way Cuepoint operates to equal the editorial control of the NYTimes, Time Magazine, a scholarly review, an academic paper or book published by an expert on a particular topic? What is an expert? I think the position I stated above covers my position well because I tend to be more of a skeptic. Oh, and I apologize for not being more clear as to my intentions for including those scripts as they were meant to be for the benefit of anyone who may not be aware of them. Atsme 💬 📧 13:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying your position and re the scripts comment. I don't dispute your viewpoint, but will just note that a publication asking for pitches isn't that unusual; The Verge does it, as does even The New York Times (both listed as generally reliable at RSP). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Pitchfork genre categories

There is concern (brought up here) that the music website Pitchfork lists genres at the top of their album and song reviews that are used as overly broad categories for site searchability, and that those should perhaps be deprecated because of their broadness/potential inaccuracy. This is similar to the standard set for the website AllMusic (see WP:ALLMUSIC) where we only accept genres that appear within the prose of the written review, and if it clears would involve leaving a note on the Pitchfork entry at WP:RSMUSIC (and wherever else is applicable) to inform editors of this rule. QuietHere (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that given the issues highlighted here and in the discussion linked above, a note at WP:RSMUSIC would indeed be helpful, in my opinion. Oroborvs (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting that other websites listed on RSMUSIC also have similar categories, such as Exclaim! (e.g. the "POP AND ROCK" tag at the bottom of this review). Might need to check a lot more of those sites to see which else need this notice. QuietHere (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Does the Associated Press' commitment to accountability journalism render it generally more WP:BIASED?

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

---

In 2013, the Associated Press' executive editor described their commitment to accountability journalism. Does this commitment render the Associated Press generally more biased on topics that might reasonably fall under it? --Aquillion (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey (Associated Press)

• No. Accountability journalism is well-respected tradition of journalism focused on determing the truth without regard to pleasing advertisers or political leaders; it is used by a wide number of high-quality RSes, eg. [20][21]. As described here, it corrects for biases that come from advertisers or (for publicly-subsidized media) political leaders, producing more accurate reporting: The advertisers and consumers are rivals for information. The public wants to know everything about a product or service offered by an advertiser, but that advertiser may want to share only certain information about the product and about itself. Accountability journalism, also referred to as “watchdog” or “investigative” journalism, focuses on the demands of the public and will often reveal information that could be embarrassing to an advertiser or, in the case of publicly subsidized media, the political leaders who control media budgets. Or see eg. [22], Put in even shorter-hand, access reporting tells you what the powerful said, while accountability reporting tells you what they did. Some editors have speculated that the "demands of the public" could lead to biases themselves, but there's no sourcing supporting that and even if it were true, such speculation is obviously answered by the cite above - other forms of journalism have their own biases, which accountability bias specifically corrects for, so it is absurd to suggest that accountability journalism itself could render a source more susceptible to bias overall. --Aquillion (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• No, bias does not equate to unreliability. --Masem (t) 01:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• As laid out carefully above and below, the question this RFC is asking is whether the AP can be considered generally biased or not, not whether it is reliable or not; "reliability" and "unreliability" appear nowhere in the question - we are talking solely about whether the AP is generally biased, as you have previously indicated you feel that it is. By your "no", are you conceding that the AP is not generally biased, or at least that accountability journalism is in no way a source of bias? --Aquillion (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

This response is incoherent. The RfC question is, to paraphrase a bit, "is the AP biased". This response is, to paraphrase a bit, "No it's not, because yes it is but it doesn't matter". That's a contradiction. Please answer the question that was asked and not some different question. Loki (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• No, and WTF In what world does holding public figures and other powerful people not one of the primary purpose of journalism. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• Procedural close: if Aquillion and Masem both say "no" then I would suggest that the RfC is not helpful to resolve some theoretical disagreement between them; nor do I see that an RfC serves any actionable purpose in relation to the discussion it arose from or some other dispute. — Bilorv (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• The core question is whether people can argue that the AP must be attributed when calling people to account per WP:BIASED due to its commitment to accountability journalism. If Masem has genuinely conceded the point and agrees that the AP cannot generally be presumed biased, then we can close the RFC, but otherwise it's important to establish that given how frequently we cite the AP for matters of fact. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Masem's response is self-contradictory. Reading it carefully, it means "no but actually yes", because he appears to be answering "no" to some different question that wasn't asked, while implying a yes to the actual question at hand by suggesting the AP is biased without ever actually having to say "yes it's biased". It's classic politician-speak, and ironically so since the original discussion was about how to refer to American politicians.

My blunt opinion here is that this suggests that Masem already knows consensus is strongly against his position, to the point where he doesn't want to have to defend it openly. So therefore, the value of this RfC is mostly in establishing that consensus against Masem's view on this explicitly, so people in similar arguments in the future will have somewhere to point to. Loki (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• No. I don't see any commitment to accountability journalism. In her speech, Carroll "extols" it and "underscores [its] importance", but nothing more. The speech is actually pretty tame. She says that journalists should ask "How" instead of just publishing no effort stories like Rivers Flood. Governor Holds Press Conference. Opposition Seethes. Local Team Loses Another Squeaker. Etc. She then goes on to give a few examples of how her team uncovered stories by questioning the official narrative and not simply reporting what the authorities believe. Tempest in a teapot? JBchrch talk 19:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• No - it's always been the job of good journalism to answer who, what, where, when, why, how. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• No - that speech appears to be pretty bog-standard and I'd honestly be suspicious of any journalistic outlet that doesn't ask basically qualifying questions like "how do you know this?". And because apparently this was somehow in doubt despite the question being very clear, I am saying that the AP is not (even) biased, not that it's reliable despite being biased. The question of whether it would be reliable if it was biased doesn't come up because it's not biased. Loki (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• No No source covers all material equally; resources do not make that possible. No one faults ESPN from focusing on sports, and the same standard is held here. If the AP focuses its resources on researching, investigating, and certain topics, that is not a hallmark of reliability one way or another. Just as ESPN's bias towards using its resources to cover sports does not make it unreliable, that the AP bias towards using its resources for covering certain topics has no bearing on reliability. --Jayron32 14:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• No The Associated Press may well be the least biased news organization in the United States. Those who accuse it of widespread bias are just showing their own deep biases. Cullen328 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Stupid answer to a stupid question First things first, my understanding is that Masem objected not to the quality of AP's reporting but to the apparent increased usage of labels seen as pejorative. What is our authority as WP users to determine that the usage of seemingly pejorative labels AP/Reuters/AFP etc. apply and believe is accurate is in fact inaccurate or requires attribution they themselves do not think is necessary? We would only have it if there existed a genuine dispute among RSs, and this is not the case. Now, Masem does not seem to dispute that AP is the golden standard of journalism, as major newswire services generally tend to be. What is our authority as WP users to resist the prevailing journalism standards as Masem proposed or set the record straight for these outlets if the outlets change their standards in a way that does not impact reliability? According to our current rules, there isn't really any. This also applies for any attempts to set straight the records of outlets that themselves have the objective of setting the record straight (which is what journalism is generally about).

Secondly, this is not the discussion for RSN. if the issue is editors caring too much about their bugbears and reflecting this on Wikipedia by editing more than needed about a specific topic, well that's a problem of editors and of UNDUE. If the issue is about the articles being more negative than they should be, it's an NPOVN issue. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• No - this is absurd: the AP announces it is practicing actual journalism rather than just regurgitating press releases, and this somehow makes them less reliable? It is to laugh. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• No. Accountability journalism is largely equivalent to watchdog journalism or investigative journalism. Being biased towards the truth and accuracy is not a bias worth mentioning like "the AP (which leans towards reality) reported Joe Schmo received a bribe, while Magical Unicorn Infonet (a JoeSchmoCorp enterprise devoted to the idea that facts don't exist) denied the allegations." All media outlets have inherit biases in what they do and do not cover, otherwise news would be a noisy, unfiltered collection of all occurrences, regardless of importance (a tree fell in the woods, the bus was 10 minutes late, the mayor ate a pastrami sandwich for lunch, 20 people died in a fire...). One might say the AP is "biased" towards the English language, or its own style manual, or hiring humans instead of marmosets, or the idea that up is the opposite of down.This doens't requre in-text attribution. If there are rare occasions where it is editorially warranted to call out the AP (or any source) in particular, by all means do so. But let's not turn every article into a pedantic kindergarten show-and-tell collection of: "The Washington Post said the sky is blue, and the AP said that a plane crashed today, and according to a report by safety inspector professor Sam Bamson, plane crashes can be dangerous, and the New York Times reported that all people on board were dead." --Animalparty! (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• The argument Masem was making belongs on WP:NPOV/N or WT:NPOV, not RSN. The framing of is the source more biased on RSN, where it doesnt matter, ignores the entire point of that discussion. The discussion on a dispassionate tone has nothing to do with reliability. I dont think anybody is going to answer yes here, this is a waste of time, and it should just be SNOW closed at this point. nableezy - 03:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Wrong venue. This is the reliable sources noticeboard, intended for evaluating the reliability of sources in context. Bias and reliability are orthogonal: a source can be biased and still reliable on a topic. I suggest a procedural close. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• No, the AP is considered reliable. It's one of the major outlets. It is not partisan or systemically biased. It is not affiliated with a political movement or party. It's a major journalism outlet and it's quite unbiased as these things go. Andrevan@ 15:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Associated Press)

• This grew out of discussion here, where the concern was raised; note that the outcome of this RFC won't really say anything about the larger question there. --Aquillion (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  And which Ive stressed there, this a.non nessecary RFC because being biased does not equate to bein unreliable. This RFC is a waste of time because obviously the AP still remains reliable. Masem (t) 01:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  WP:BIASED; of course biased sources can be reliable. However, whether a source is biased can be a separate, relevant question, and I think that is what this discussion is asking. BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• As BilledMammal said, this RFC is about bias and not unreliablity - I recognize you are not calling it unreliable, but your argument is that the source is rendered generally biased by that statement (ie. unless I misunderstand your position, that statement is, based on your reading, something that omni-applicably renders the AP biased any time their reporting could be construed as calling anyone to account.) That's a broad, sweeping claim that affects the usage of the AP in a huge number of places across the wiki (and as you indicated there, you have comparable arguments that you'd apply to other high-quality sources, though I think answering it for the AP is sufficient for now.) That's the sort of thing that should be resolved with an RFC about the WP:RS in question, so you shouldn't say no, as you did above, unless you're conceding the point that accountability journalism is not, at least in this case, a source of bias. --Aquillion (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  No being biased does not affect incorporating the AP as an RS. It might affect how we summarize what is said based on YESPOV, using attribution than wikivoice when it comes to subjective statements, but not its flat out objective factual reporting. Thats all a NPOV question. Masem (t) 02:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that this is a question better suited for WP:NPOVN rather than WP:RSN? I think I agree with that, given the policies I just cited. BilledMammal (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't object terribly to moving it, although moving an RFC is tricky. I would want to leave at least a notice here because I feel that discussing specific sources, including if or when they're biased, is also a matter for WP:RSN. --Aquillion (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Not even just NPOVN, it is a long standing issue boiling for years (2015 if not earlier), that has divided the community, but there is no clear way forward. The net result is basically how do we go about summarizing sources on People and topics which have fallen under more intense media scrutiny (as accountability journalism does), eg someone like Trump or Boris Johnson, while maintaining the neutrality writing goals of NPOV. No one single RFCcan solve that. Masem (t) 02:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

If it's an issue that has been boiling since 2015, that's all the more reason to start RFCs to try and resolve at least some parts of it. I don't expect / intend for one RFC to solve everything - this RFC is intentionally narrow compared to the broader issues; I'm sure you have other reasons you consider these sources biased, which we'll have to go through one by one. But I think we might consider questions that could be asked to narrow the scope of the issue further; we can at the very least answer specific questions about whether a specific source is biased for a specific reason, so we don't constantly run into circular-back-and-forth like "we can't cite the AP for this, the AP is generally biased!", "no, it isn't, it's a high-quality reliable source and is the gold standard for neutral journalism!" and so on. A question about "is the media, as a whole, biased" (and "is academia, as a whole, biased", which would naturally be connected) isn't really useful because defining bias that broadly would render it meaningless, but when you raise specific concerns about individual sources, saying that you feel they are biased for specific reasons, that's something an RFC can answer. --Aquillion (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• For those of us not acquainted with accountability journalism, can an editor explain why it might? BilledMammal (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  Basically, if a politician appoints his son to a position, that's nepotism. Accountability journalism would push back on the narrative that Mr Politician Jr got appointed to the Very Important Position on basis of his merits alone. Basically if you have a situation that doesn't smell quite right, a journalist will dig it, ask questions, find patterns and generally investigate the situation and hold someone's feet to the flames and grill them with questions and publish their reporting. The Watergate Scandal is an example of it. Investigative reporting on the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases is another. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Middle East International

I have been using Draft:Middle East International as a reference/source and would like to know if it can be considered as reliable. I appreciate that it is no longer published, probably had low circulation and is not available for checking on the internet. I have been using it in dozens of Lebanon related articles, for instance War of Liberation (1989–1990) and Zahleh campaign. Many thanks. Padres Hana (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I've seen them cited by a few good resources in my search to find their e-prints, but it seems they hosted their entire archive on their own site and now that's kaput. Internet Archive has only their indices stored (and only for select years). I was hoping to read one of their articles used to support one of the more judgemental statements of the WP article (I selected ref 49 in the Lebanese Civil War: MEI 148, 24 April 1981; Jim Muir p.3.). If you know what online database, if any, carries their archives, let me know -- I tried ProQuest and a couple others already.

In the meantime, I'm overall just glad that almost everything in the articles is attributed in-line to specific places in source material (to what degree that correlates to the reality of the sources, I don't know yet). It does seem however that there is a lot of reliance on MEI as a source almost contemporaneous with the event in question, which is not ideal for something that happened over 30 years ago about which many books have been written. It's great to go into fine detail where appropriate, but historical reviews make a more generalized and hopefully more accurate assessment using a range of sources, so it's important to be reliant more on those for bigger-picture analysis. Also, sometimes MEI is cited when a broader source would be perfectly fine, such as ref 84: "three Western hostages were executed and a new round of hostage taking started." That's a pretty easily verified fact, though it seems to usually be lost in secondary history coverage because waaaay too much other stuff was going on. However -- and this is a good illustration of the caution needed using contemporaneous sources in history -- according to Nevin 2003 they "executed 1 US and 3 British hostages within a week." SamuelRiv (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I am away from home and cannot check ref 84 but I would think the report included the names of the men killed which would add to its credibility. Before I left I took a photo of ref 49 and can share if I knew how. Padres Hana (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Temporary loaded to Commons so can present as evidence for reliability discussion

I take the point that a longer perspective might clarify our view of events in the past. This case (reference 84/6) is an example: according to the MEI report it was unclear from the video released by the “Revolutionary Organisation of Socialist Muslims” that the man being hanged was Alec Collett, a 64 yr old British journalist working with UNRWA, kidnapped in March, as claimed. So I put the number killed as three. I haven't followed up the Springler reference you give and don’t remember the full Collett story except that somewhere on Wikipedia I saw that his body was identified in 2009.

With reference to reliability here are some notes taken from the Jim Muir report (2 May 1986).

16 April 1986. Three bodies found in grey blankets near village, Roueissat Safor, single shot in back of head. Two where quickly identified. Philip Padfield and Leigh Douglas, British teachers and long time residents, kidnapped in March. Confusion over third body. Initially thought to be Collett but confirmed as Peter Kilburn, 61 year old American librarian at AUB, who had been taken sixteen months earlier. The family believes he died shortly after the kidnapping since he had had a stroke previously and needed diabetes medication. Doctors were surprised he had not lost weight in time as a prisoner. A note near the bodies from the “Arab Commando Cells” made it clear that it was in retaliation for the Libya airstrikes. Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe quoted as saying he had firm intelligence that the men had been in Libyan hands. The murders were condemned by all West Beirut leaders, including Walid Jumblatt (long quote “my homeland is collapsing”), Nabih Berri and Sayyid Muhamad Hussein Faddallah. A few hours later John McCarthy, “a cameraman with World Television News”, was kidnapped on his way, under escort, to the airport. On 20 April remaining 35 British citizens evacuated from West Beirut. Two days later 11 Americans “escorted across the line”. A few French teachers came out later. Padres Hana (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It was not published in academic press seems like a polemical magazine Shrike (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Embassy page used as stand-alone source for a contentious historical claim denied by academic sources

1. Source in question: [23]
2. Article: Antanas Mackevičius
3. Content: diff
The page www.naszapamiec.pl, ran by the Embassy of Poland located in Lithuania, claims that Antanas Mackevičius was a Pole and a Lithuanian (it is the only source claiming that, besides some Polish news sites), while all academic sources say he was only Lithuanian. Following WP:RS, the source of the embassy page should be removed, because scholarly sources are preferred on Wikipedia. However, because Marcelus will most likely engage in WP:Editwar if I do remove it, considering his previous actions on that page, I am hesitant to do so. Could someone please help resolve this dispute? Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Where is a dispute exactly? I don't deny that he was Lithuanian (because he was), but you keep removing any mention of his Polishness (which is obvious, dude literally fighted under a moto "God Save Poland"). Where is the problem excatly? I don't really have any dispute with you Marcelus (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem is using an unacademic source for statements that are contradicted by academic sources. If "his Polishness" really "is obvious" as you claim, why do you struggle so hard with finding academic sources saying that? WP:Verifiability, not truth states that Sources must also be appropriate and the ones you provide aren't. News articles from zw.lt, Polskie Radio 24 and this embassy page of the Polish government versus academic scholarship concerning a historical person? The latter is obviously preferred and the former should be removed as contradicting academic consensus.

Furthermore, saying that I don't really have any dispute with you after reporting me to WP:ANI with distorted and manipulated accusations and also engaging in various WP:EDITWARS with me for far too many times on many articles is factually incorrect. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any dispute with you on this topic. Because I don't condradict anything what you are saying, Mackiewicz was Lithuanian. For unknown reason you are removing sources I am adding uner a pretence that they are contradicitng yours. I don't see any contradiction. Marcelus (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any dispute with you on this topic. Yes you do, otherwise why did you then WP:Editwar on Antanas Mackevičius? You edit-war against me, ergo we are engaged in a dispute. All academic sources say that Mackevičius was Lithuanian and not a Pole. Going against the academic consensus that Mackevičius was just Lithuanian instead of a Pole or 'Polish-Lithuanian' means you are going against WP:RS and are pushing your WP:POV that goes against those sources. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have editwar with you, you have editwar with me, constantly removing all the sources I added.Marcelus (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The WP:STABLE version of Antanas Mackevičius on March 16 clearly said he was Lithuanian. Marcelus came along on June 30 and initiated an WP:EDITWAR, calling Mackevičius 'Polish', when all academic sources call him 'Lithuanian'. This WP:Editwar continues to this day, i.e. it is practically going on for 17 days (and counting!). Plus, I did not do what Marcelus accuses me of doing, namely constantly removing all the sources I added. I removed ONLY one (the zw.lt news article) and with good justification. The other source (Polskie Radio 24) that Marcelus added remains in the article in a note. Yet another source, the academic article by Okulicz that said Mackevičius was Lithuanian ("Litwin" in the Polish language) I put that as another reference for calling Mackevičius a Lithuanian, but Marcelus kept putting it as a source for calling him "Polish", thus going against Wiki policy of WP:Verifiability. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't iniate any edit war, you started it. I don't what is your problem with Poland and Polish culture, but it's getting worrying.Marcelus (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The embassy of Poland in Lithuania, for about the same reasons as mentioned just above, will not normally be reliable, particularly given the tendency of Eastern European nations to take credit for everything that even tangentially is related to these countries, and then making a fuss about it. The materials of the embassy obviously do not trump scholarship, and I would argue that they should not be used there. We should be careful here though, as Adam Mickiewicz, for example, was a Pole despite him having written "Litwo, Ojczyzno moja", as Mickiewicz used the term as today's Poles would say they are from Podlasie, Wielkopolska and so on. Whether that applies to Mackevičius is a question you should find in scholarship. Don't bother using the embassy's materials, and I'd ask you to stay away from Polish Radio materials from about 2016 on as well as it parrots Polish govt positions/propaganda from that period on. Znad Wilii (zw.lt) is a Polish-language outlet that receives state funds from Poland. This is somewhat better, still scholarship is much more preferred.

Also, I've filed an 3RR report against you both, you should have had a rest from the topic a long time ago. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• naszapamiec.pl (a website created by the embassy of Poland in Vilnius) is not a reliable source for such a claim. M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Why is that? Marcelus (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

There's a similar debate going on above about an Israeli government site, basically the consensus is that governments are not reliable sources on history. Or if they are, there are nearly always better sources to be had.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Well to a certain point. I dont think an embassy website can be taken as the official word of the government, thats too many layers between the authority and the source. But if, for example, the US Department of State said "John Doe was an American citizen" then I would say that is a reliable source for that, as that is the preeminent authority for the citizenship status in the United States. If the US Embassy in Egypt said Mohamed Doe was an American citizen Id say meh would want that verified by the Department of State itself. But citizenship is a thing the state decides, so the state would be reliable for that. Does an embassy count for that? Id say no. nableezy - 18:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

First, an embassy necessarily reflects the opinions of the MFA, so ultimately of the government; and embassies will normally track the citizens of their state under the purview of the embassy. Secondly, we are not speaking about citizenship, but about nationality, and specifically the nationality of a historical person whom more than one nation claim as their own. This is the origin of most entries in the Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/Ethnic_feuds subpage, and also of tensions in IRL politics in extreme cases. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, an embassy represents the nation, I just think the degrees of separation between the website of an embassy, or a consular official, and the actual authority significant enough that we should not take an embassy website as reliable. As far as nationality vs citizenship, I suppose thats a distinction worth noting. nableezy - 03:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think an embassy can possibly be considered a reliable source on any event predating the establishment of that state, which is why I qualified my comment as "unreliable sources on history". They could be considered reliable primary sources on the opinion of their government on history, I think. But of course, we need to attribute in that case.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I dont think an embassy is a reliable source ever except for the operations of that specific embassy as a primary source. I just wanted to push back, ever so slightly, on governments never being reliable. For history yeah I agree. But for questions of was X a citizen of our state? Or what is the population of Y administrative district? Yes, reliable. nableezy - 06:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of GB News as a source for citations

1. Source in question: https://www.gbnews.uk/
2. Article: GB News

Requesting a consensus be formed with the source being added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with the appropriate Legend upon a consensus being formed. Helper201 (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe that this request is malformed. Please retract this request, read Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief, and then submit a request that is neutral. Also, include what you want to use from the source, and now you want to use it. - Donald Albury 20:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Donald Albury, with all due respect I don't see how I have not already done that. That being said I am open to doing as such if you'd recommend a new wording. Helper201 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm requesting the source be valued as a whole/generally in regards to its suitable as a source of evidence for citations. It seems to be mainly politically focused so I'm guessing that will be the primary subject matter it will be used for. But it’s a news platform so I assume it will have a range of content. Helper201 (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I have not used the source and don't plan on doing so, it’s just I've seen someone else use it for a citation and wanted the source to be evaluated before its use becomes more widespread. Helper201 (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read the notice displayed at the top of this page, which gives instructions on how to ask for a consensus on reliability. Context is important. - Donald Albury 20:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I have done so but I honestly don't see what you think is the problem. Please just say exactly and specifically what the issue is and how you want me to change the request or wording to fix it. Helper201 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in, the following information is missing (see the instruction above):

“

Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: Article name.

Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes.

”

Alaexis_¿question? 06:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Regardless of how this is formatted, I think we can be fairly clear that a "news" channel that includes a section called "Wokewatch" [24] is probably going to be generally unreliable for anything to do with politics. Not to mention the presence of Neil Oliver, Darren Grimes, Mark Dolan et al. British version of Fox, effectively. See also the anti-vax fake news links in my post below which suggests to me it should probably be deprecated. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Black Kite Comment If this is a section of a commentary show on the channel – like the commentary shows on Fox, CNN and other American outlets – and not part of its actual news content, then it doesn't necessarily indicate the reliability of the channel's reporting. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  That said, it is presumably at least a rung below more established sources such as the BBC and newspapers such as the Economist and Guardian. thorpewilliam (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable, but its really going to depend on the context. Which is what exactly? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Multiple sources are listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as either "generally unreliable" or "deprecated" without any specific context being given, e.g. Daily Mail, Daily Express etc. Helper201 (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
    • The context is in the linked discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• partisan source, generally unreliable, any syndicated content it carries could maybe be considered on a case by case basis. Acousmana 21:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: A cursory search on Full Fact reveals a number of failed fact checks for GB News (source: https://fullfact.org/search/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22GB%20News%22). --Minoa (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Minoa, searching for "The Guardian" on Full Facts produces more than 500 results, many of which are also failed fact checks [25]. I don't think that the Guardian is unreliable, so this is not a good way to gauge unreliability. Alaexis_¿question? 07:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  And there are 300+ entries for the Times and Telegraph too. Also, don't forget that a number of fact checks support the news source (indeed the first four Guardian ones that came up for me did). You'd really have to analyse them one by one. However, the noticeable thing about the 42 GB News entries (for a news source that's only been going a year) is that large number of them include fake news being peddled, including dangerous anti-vax stuff i.e. [26] [27] [28] [29] Black Kite (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, this is exactly the kind of analysis that needs to be made to make conclusions. Alaexis_¿question? 08:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I just wanted to try and get the analysis running instead of the RFC being bogged down with whether the request is malformed or not. --Minoa (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable: when a news source is created with the sole intention of "telling you what the mainstream media won’t" or something similar, then that’s an immediate red flag that within hours of launch they’ll go straight to the fake news well (c.f. the Corbynista blogs who tried to argue that February has over 2,000 days, because Steve Walker couldn’t read a WHOIS record properly). The hiring of Andrew Neil was, out of the gate, an attempt to bring some legitimacy to the new channel; once he resigned, the channel quickly devolved into basically the British version of Newsmax. Sceptre (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable: Sources are seemingly about its TV station rather than its website, but: described as "opinion-led" and as "[challenging] to traditional notions of impartial and objective news" by the Reuters Institute (1,2). Also, has been compared to Fox News (1). In fact according to the NYT it was staffed with alumni from Murdoch media ventures (1) around its launch date. --Chillabit (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Impartiality and objectivity are about bias rather than reliability. Do your sources say that they are unreliable? Alaexis_¿question? 07:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  You have a point, though, if a news org is lead too strongly by its own bias it can affect reliability. The comparison to Fox is not doing any favors for them, either, as Fox are known for that sort of coverage. --Chillabit (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable As it seems (and seems to be regarded as) as a TV version of tabloid churnalism. As to the comnlp;arsion to (sayh) the guardian, GB news has been around for a year, the Guardian fact check page goes back 8 years, of course they will have made more mistakes, 10 a year (as opposed to 70 in its first year). Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, and other sources should be used in preference to it. However, it may be useful within certain contexts - e.g. direct quotes where X said Y on the programme, but even these should be covered by other RS. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable GBNEWS is a largely opaquely structured and financed, purpose launched station to deliver specific alternative facts against a range of perspectives. As Sceptre states above - it's an OAN and Newsmax, much the way TalkTV is. Most of the noteworthy content it produces will be opinion, which is appropriate for their opinion only but unlikely to carry any significant weight in any serious topic compared to actual reliable sources, and notable experts in those fields. Koncorde (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose classifying as unreliable on procedural grounds. There were 6 !votes and only three sources have been brought up. Of these three, two (Reuters report and Stephen Jukes's book) do not discuss the reliability of GB News and one (Full Fact) requires analysis to understand if the source is better or worse than the average (How many failed fact checks are there? Is the frequency higher or lower than that of other outlets? Were retractions issues? etc.). I don't think I've ever used GB News as a source and I would happily reconsider my vote if there is good evidence of their unreliability. Alaexis_¿question? 07:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Does it matter if some of the fact checks "fail" if a significant number clearly show the station peddling fake news? This isn't just "stories that turned out to be false", it's actively pushing a POV based on lies. Black Kite (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Other outlets' publications have also failed fact checks, e.g. The Telegraph. This is insufficient to declare all of them unreliable. If you are basing your argument on fact checks, you should at least demonstrate that GBNews are significantly worse than others. Also, it would be good to see the breakdown between the news and opinion as the latter "are rarely reliable for statements of fact" per WP:NEWSORG. Alaexis_¿question? 08:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• You're missing the point. There is a massive difference between a news source that prints/broadcasts a story that is later found to be untrue (and retracts it), and one that regularly prints/broadcasts them knowing them to be false for an ulterior motive. The latter is why the Daily Mail is deprecated, and why GBNews needs to go the same way. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  I understand it very well, however no evidence has been presented in this thread that it "regularly prints/broadcasts [untrue stories] knowing them to be false." Alaexis_¿question? 10:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. Seriously? Anti-knowledge channel of zero use to Wikipedia. Anybody wanting to use this drivel probably needs banning for WP:CIR issues or as a WP:POVPUSHER. Alexbrn (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Darius Bowie

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

---

hi wikipedia. this would seriously mean so much to me can someone please review my submission to get my wikipedia page published. I am an established and verified standup comedian for over 10 years and would mean the world to me to have my own wikipedia page to verify and establish my blood sweat and tears. 2604:2D80:D6FC:C400:0:0:0:B91 (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

See this guide for why the article has no chance of being accepted at this time. See WP:AUTO for why the article can be a bad idea. If you don't feel like reading either of those, short version is Wikipedia articles require independent, in-depth coverage by reliable sources, they are written neutrally, the best bet is to become famous enough for someone else to write it and if it is ever written you may find it's more headache than joy. Slywriter (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Your material's all missing the heart. You can't expect to get by with a stand-up routine that's all disconnected one-liners. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Roasted. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 00:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you doing? Piling on to an inappropriate comment? SVTCobra 00:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

What? You are criticizing the quality of Darius Bowies' comedy (one of the most subjective things ever) as a reason for non-inclusion? The OP can be forgiven for posting in the wrong venue and not understanding how Wikipedia works, but you ought to know better, Jéské. SVTCobra 00:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Look at what I linked, then look at his references. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the subject is non-notable and the article lacks sources. My problem is your comment You can't expect to get by with a stand-up routine that's all disconnected one-liners which is a direct reference to the subject's work as a comedian. From my perspective, it is an extreme form of WP:BITE and personal disrespect. SVTCobra 00:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

If anon is truly a stand-up comic, they will have endured much worse by hecklers :-) but in all seriously, I think Jéské Couriano is just joshing gently, not biting. Andrevan@ 06:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

RSN is now a venue for joshing and joking? That is certainly news to me. Seriously, nothing needed to be said after Slywriter's explanation. I am baffled by the abandonment of manners. A simple google search for "Darius Bowie" will reveal that it is a real stand-up comic. I cannot, of course, say if anon is that comic, but why belittle the comic whether anon is he or not? And what is your nonsense argument "oh, comics endure worse on stage"? What does that have to do with anything? Should we treat ballet dancers differently than boxers? I am really baffled here. Why are people applauding and defending the personal insult? SVTCobra 09:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Comedians' stock in trade is jokes, giving and take. Even coming to this Wikipedia page and asking in the way that they did, is kind of funny, possibly a joke of sorts. The only bitey person here feels like you at the moment. Please relax. Everything is fine. Calling my argument nonsense is also missing the humor, that's why I punctuated with a :-) I'm sure if Darius Bowie is reading this, they are laughing. Regardless, I do not agree that Jéské's attempt at humor constitutes WP:BITEing a newbie. I am sure the newbie will understand that we don't just make pages unless there are WP:RS. Andrevan@ 19:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, their sources are missing vital bibliographical information, and are just contextless names, dates, and "pg. 1"s. Thus, their material is missing the heart, their sources are disconnected one-liners, and SVTCobra is a terrible straight man. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as situational anti-humor, I didn't SVT did too bad? SamuelRiv (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Violation of Biography of a Living Person Guidelines

David Paulides

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Paulides

Someone inside wikipedia has put publications like the Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptoid, and  other debunker rags into wikipedia's group of "reliable sources."  Those magazines make their money by lying and creating bias against anything they consider paranormal.  They have zero respect for the truth.

wikipedia opened the door for wikipedia editors to use those magazines as sources.  Using the falsehoods from these corrupt articles, wikipedia editors can discredit, cancel, and demean anyone they choose.

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2017/07/31/pseudo-skepticism-the-new-debunker/

Here's an example of the new level of poison being fed into site's like David Paulides.  If he so much as mentions the word, conspiracy, ever, in a book, film, magazine, anywhere in print, these editors will make it his whole life. It's how wikipedia turned the Missing 411 into the Missing 411 Conspiracy.

One author at Skeptical Inquirer said that every time a hiker goes missing, David Paulides calls it a Missing 411 case.  That's a blatant lie, but because it came from  a "reliable source," it can be added to a person's biography as if it's true.

There's three or four wikipedia editors who hover over David Paulides' bio, which I've tried to work on.  They use insidious logic to twist truth into lies.  Now the lies are being disseminated out to Twitter, Facebook, etc.

The biography I've tried to work on was given "protected status" because it was being "repeatedly vandalized."  Translated that means that the people who are trying to change the biography into something that resembles the truth are immediately shot down by vigilent editors who preserve the lies.

If there are any adults left at wikipedia or anyone with a conscience who can help unlock that biography page or lose the protected status so it can be changed from a pack of lies into an actual biography, it would finally be the correct thing and an accomplishment.  Many many well-intentioned editors before me have tried to edit the page for years and failed, nothing has changed.  That something as simple as removing the slander and lies and adding a simple biography has never been accomplished just astonishes me.  If I were the subject of this page I would be in the process of requesting it be deleted.   ~~~~

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA503310504&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=01946730&p=AONE&sw=w MikiBishop (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Discussion of BLP violations belong at WP:BLPN. I'm unfamiliar with this topic, but a quick look reveals it's about Bigfoot crankery, so "skeptical" publications are likely necessary for some sane context, in line with the English Wikipedia's requirement for neutrality. Alexbrn (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Or, if insufficient critical coverage can be found, removing the mentions of fringe beliefs entirely. Solely using credulous sources (some of which may be SPS or adjacent) would be equally problematic in a BLP. Can't be NPOV if we only take the subject of the article at their word. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• The mention of Skeptical Inquirer brings back memories of this Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373 SVTCobra 16:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think it's fair to question whether the podcast by Kyle Polich is reliable and/or should be featured as much as is, as it's likely self-published, and aside from occasional freelancing or consulting Polich doesn't seem to do much else than podcast. But I think the issue here is more of tone and balance than in reliability: skeptical sources are extolled in detail (we wouldn't write: " Blob Blonson, a journalist for The New York Times, in a June 21 1998 article titled "Blah blah blah", wrote blah blah blah..."). The article as a whole reminds me of coming from the point of view of a kid who's really into dinosaurs, and talks a whole lot about them whenever the chance arises. Only swap dinosaurs for skeptic writers and podcasters. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

There is also the issue of whether the statement "Paulides was charged with a misdemeanor count of falsely soliciting for a charity." (cited here,) assuming it even refers the same person, rises to the level of inclusion in a biography per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PROPORTION. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

How many different David Paulideses worked at the San Jose Police Department? XOR'easter (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea: do you think a charge with no documented resolution must be included in a BLP? Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or a machine dedicated to "holding all wrongdoers accountable?", regardless of severity of wrongdoing? --Animalparty! (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It isn't hard to verify that the San Jose police has had only one David Paulides. The records are public. The source is valid, it's reliable, and it's coverage of an incident in his career, encyclopedically relevant to a biography, but not more than one sentence's worth. I found other coverage of his career, local-interest pieces about routine police work, like stopping to help a motorist working under the hood of a broken-down car, and when getting in the car to assist in starting it, discovers a bag of marijuana on the seat. Routine stuff, all police officers have stories like that. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And furthermore, the section about "Bigfoot or Sasquatch" seems to be somewhat of a tangential coatrack, going beyond aspects that Paulides is widely known for: I don't care that the Bigfoot DNA article was debunked, but reliable sources don't seem to connect it strongly to Paulides: all we have is Paulides' blog post saying his organization organized the study and "picked" Dr. Ketchum, and that he supported the results (unsurprisingly). Was Paulides a co-author of the study, or otherwise widely recognized as being associated with it? If not, much of the material about the DNA article should probably be omitted or relegated elsewhere, such as Bigfoot#"DeNovo:_Journal_of_Science"_article or some future article on Ketchum --Animalparty! (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Based on newspaper coverage I found from 2009 in NewspaperArchive, Bigfoot seems to be the primary thing he's known for, at least back then. Example source: Jesse Faulkner (May 31, 2009). "Bigfoot? He's real to these folks". Marysville Appeal Democrat. p. 3.; unfortunately the site doesn't let me create a publicly-accessible link. The article does provide some interesting context about how he got involved in Bigfoot investigations. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should ignore his Bigfoot related activities, indeed they are a large part of his notability. I'm saying I don't think the single 2013 Bigfoot DNA paper that dominates the section is as significant to his career or Bigfoot activities as the Wikipedia article makes it out to be (violating WP:PROPORTION): it looks like whoever added that section really wanted to write about the Bigfoot DNA paper, and shoehorned it into Paulides' biography. It's a coatrack. --Animalparty! (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks to me that the section is dominated by coverage of Missing 411. The DNA paper gets a smaller subsection which could be trimmed a bit. Hardly a coatrack. However, that paper seems like the source of his notability (at least among the True Believers), as that paper has apparently led to him being listed as a featured speaker at multiple events spanning over a decade, such as "Sasquatch Summit" (full-page color newspaper ad in 2016), "Bigfoot Encounters in California: The Hoopa Project" (small announcement in 2008), and "Sasquatch Fest" (half-page color newspaper ads in 2021 and 2022). Clearly the bigfoot connection is what he seems known for, primarily, although I also found a large ad for the "UFO Paranormal Summit" (2018) in which he was listed as the author of Missing 411. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

sufiwiki.com

Hi fellow wikipedians. I want to cite Sufiwiki.com in one of my article on wikipedia. Just need a couple of opinions on its reliability. 203.192.225.56 (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• per Google Books it is cited by number of authors.

• No, it just looks like a wiki with no oversight. --SVTCobra 12:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think just being the wiki it violates WP:RS. Per https://sufiwiki.com/help-out/ it confirms oversight. 203.192.225.56 (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

While there may be some oversight, it still falls under WP:USERGENERATED content. As such it should not be considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Quoting the source: "our local Alim will look through the document and verify. He may ask the team to come back to you to clarify." This seems very informal to me. SVTCobra 16:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The typical reason scholars would cite a wiki in that manner (Bamotra 2021 is the only one I found) is to provide readers with a decent lay or uncommon-language summary of some background or foundational detail. Almost always you can find other citations, often by the same scholar in other works, to RS that might be less accessible, but likely usable, unlike a wiki. I don't know what kind of article you're working on, but if you look at non-English scholarship you might find better sources, and then just rely on readers to use translator software if they want verification. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, if you want extra help in this matter (I'm just assuming you may be inexperienced at WP because you don't have a username), on finding better sources or anything else, you can always reach out to other editors, particularly those at Wikiproject Islam or perhaps recent editors of articles closely related to your topic. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced information repeatedly restored

Krimuk2.0 has repeatedly restored this information with sources that have nothing to do with the content in question. To avoid my edit warring, I would appreciate if someone would check the source, and if you agree that it does not confirm the content, please remove it. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The scroll.in article indeed does not confirm any of the awards. The other two sources already do that just fine. That the web article calls the film a "cult" one may probably be mentioned in Raakh itself, but not in the table. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Is Comic Book Resources a reliable source?

I have come across this source (sometimes called CBR) several times, most recently in Scott the Woz, a new article I was going to patrol. Some sources of information like this [30] appear to be reliable, but the site appears to also accept sensationalist content like trivia such as [31]. I searched the archives, and found inconclusive assessments on its viability as a source. Thoughts anyone? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Not at all. It's a fan site at best. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it seems some piece are written by industry professionals, but pretty much everything I came across from CBR is sensationalist amateur writing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@CollectiveSolidarity: Option 2 for CBR (or marginally reliable/additional considerations needed). We've had this excellent discussion on BTG. I think the editorial policies are middling, and articles are okay, but the listicles poor. The about us page relies on several editors, but the managing editor only wrote 1 article, I couldn't find him writing in RS. The correction policy and fact-checking are okay, but I am concerned by this: [i]nterested In Being A Writer For CBR? We are always looking for strong passionate writers who are motivated to develop and write engaging content. We are looking for writers who can produce in-depth premium content with expert knowledge in one or more of CBR’s featured categories. So the requirements to contribute isn't clear IMO. Its listicles for me are especially superficial, such as this one, it describes Scythe Rise of Fenris (a board game expansion, I am familiar with board games and video games more than comics, so sorry) as [t]he Rise of Fenris changed everything by including an entire campaign in the box for gamers to play through, complete with secret boxes to open and huge surprises. Players were extremely pleased with expansion's modular content and it is now one of the highest-rated board game expansions to ever be released, which reminds me of Screen Rant and Game Rant covering movies based on IMDB/Letterboxd (...) scores. Another one on board games also seems poor IMO, with sensational headlines ([a]dding a twist to media adaptions, popular video games are transforming into table-top experiences sure to excite long-time fans and newcomers alike). IMO these are contrary to the disclaimer, [w]e do not post clickbait. Our headlines might be bold - but we don't throw out broad statements just to sound bold. It has to be accurate and fact-checked, I am sure there are more, better examples. Overall, I find lots of the lists possibly positively biased. Other news articles (such as this) are all right, but I don't think their "top ten" lists are useful or reliable to WP. So I think the issues are too much for this to be Option 1/generally reliable. So IMO its news articles are Option 1-2, but their listicles are poor and probably Option 2-3. Note in 2016 it was acquired by Valnet Inc, which owns marginally reliable Screen Rant, which is known to be poor for BLP-related topics and its listicles. So I think that it's probably marginally reliable. Also see here for the BTG evaluation on the ref (it might be better for comics, but I am not sure). VickKiang (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: @Piotrus: @Argento Surfer: @Historyday01: Pinging some editors who are more familiar with this ref and discussed it there. VickKiang (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I think your analysis is sound. Marginally reliable with caveats discussed here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

One man's trivia is another man's meat. I think it's reliable for indicating the fictional facts about comic book contents. It's not something we should use in BLPs, but it should be fine for pointing out that character "x" has power "y" (yes, even in a listicle; there is nothing journalistically unique about listicles, they are just arranged in an eye-candy format). BD2412 T 06:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Pre-2016 content is reliable, while post-2016 content (outside reviews and articles by Brian Cronin) should be treated with care. The website was a high-quality comics-focused news source until August 2016, when its founder sold it to Valnet, and it shifted into clickbait/churnalism. So anything before the Valnet acquisition is perfectly reliable, but the only things I'd trust after the acquisition is Brian Cronin content (he's a published author, comic book expert, and one of the few original CBR writers who remains at the site) and reviews. JOEBRO64 10:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

What Joe said. In its first 15 years or so, CBR won several industry awards for journalism. RE Vick's concern that he find[s] lots of the lists possibly positively biased, comics is a niche medium. There's rarely a need to run a poor review of a comic because reviews themselves are often how readers learn a comic even exists. If a comic is poor quality, it's better to just leave it in obscurity. The exception to that rule are the top sellers from Marve/DC/Image, which have an established audience. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: I only found the listicles to be positively biased a bit, but article are fine. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

VickKiang, thanks for the mention here. I tend to agree with BD2412 T when it comes to CBR rather than JOEBRO64, as I'd say more articles are reliable rather than less, even now. I think Listicles can be reliable, if they focus on a specific character, or one specific topic. Like this recent article about Weiss Schnee in RWBY would be a reliable source about Schnee, but less about RWBY or RWBY: Ice Queendom, to give one example I think off hand. I wouldn't dismiss CBR entirely, as they have some good writers like Reuben Baron (he also writes for Anime News Network, Anime Herald, and The Mary Sue), Brian Cronin, Renaldo Matadeen, and Diane Darcy, to name a few. They also seem to cover LGBTQ topics a LOT from what I've observed, so if anything, they can be a reliable source to use on those topics, especially when it comes to summarizing tweets, allowing for CBR to be cited instead of the original tweets, which are self-published sources. I'd say VickKiang has a good analysis here, but I also would say their reliability depends on what they are being cited for, while recognizing their good correction and fact-checking policies. In terms of the contribution page on the site, I think that is just trying to pull in new writers as they have a LOT of content they are publishing each day, so it only makes sense they'd have an open call for people to write for them. Historyday01 (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all! (is that proper grammar?) Your takes on the matter are very helpful. I will treat the source with a grain of salt based upon these responses. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

LinuxNews.de - Reliable source or single-author news blog?

I am tempted to use LinuxNews.de as a source, because it has many articles of interest for Linux-related topics; however, it appears to be a one-author publication without editorial oversight. It has been used only 5 times at English wikipedia.[32], and I found no previous RSN discussions.[33] Any other opinions? -- Yae4 (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The author, Ferdinand Thommes, appears to have also published articles in Linux Magazine, so there's at least an argument that he's a published expert in WP:SPS terms, but that seems pretty weak. Unless there's more evidence for his expertise, I'd be inclined to be cautious. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Is Rutgers University Network Contagion Research Institute a reliable source for Mintpress News?

See Talk:MintPress News#Association with Russia Today (RT). Doug Weller talk 15:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. It’s an academic research institute affiliated to a major university. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• No or should be attributed. While I generally agree that these institutes are good sources we should be careful and consistent in how we use them. For example I think people would normally attribute anything that comes out of conservative institutions such as the Hoover Institute. Additionally, we normally say peer review is a critical part of academic reliability. Material published by a research institute that isn't reviewed by outside scholars isn't peer reviewed like a research paper is reviewed. It might be more akin to the internal only review process applied to thesis/dissertation work (but presumably higher quality). Such groups aren't self published the way a personal blog is self published but it doesn't have outside review or an independent editorial board. As such it may be a notable opinion but it shouldn't be treated like a standard RS. Attribution should address those concerns. Springee (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yikes, that thread is a minefield. But to answer the question, I think it can be used if properly attributed. Furthermore, I don't quite know why Rutgers is being singled out. Network Contagion is a much, much larger project and has all kinds of backers, academic and otherwise. --SVTCobra 00:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Is the Republican Party (United States) a right-wing populist party?

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

---

There's a discussion at Talk:Right-wing populism#GOP faction or whole? about whether the Republican Party (United States) is in whole or part a right-wing populist party. Most of the sources I have read say that the party, particularly under Trump, has appealed to Klansmen, militiamen and other right-wing populist groups, but none claim they are a faction, let alone that the party has adopted their ideology.

I realize that some journalists use the term and there may be scattered use of the term in passing in some journal articles. However, I cannot find the claim made in any relevant textbooks.

TFD (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It's expected that many textbooks won't have written about this time in history yet since it is still recent, but many journal articles do [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] not to mention reliable news[40]. Here are relevant university texts: [41] [42] here's a Wapo review (paywall) of another book [43] here's another book [44] (Note: these are sources to support that Donald Trump is considered a right-wing populist, he was the leader and the dominant faction of the Republican Party for at least 2016-2020, discussing on the article talk page linked above Andrevan@ 16:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)) Andrevan@ 16:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I’m not sure why this is included at the reliable sources noticeboard, but my grain of salt is that the party does have elements of populism. Since this is a controversial topic with the possibility for recentism, I’d suggest just mentioning that the party has been said by some sources to have elements of populism, but I wholeheartedly oppose calling the party populist in Wikipedia’s voice. It would take a considerable amount of time before the majority of sources call it populist, and calling it populist without generalized acceptance by reliable sources could be undue weight. But hey, that is just my take. Feel free to dispute my perception of the subject. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  When I mean general acceptance, I mean an overwhelming usage of the term going at least a decade or two back in time. Not just university papers and news stories that have been created in the last 5-6 years. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. It had elements of it before, but since Trump it's fully embraced the populist reality denial / personality cult of Trump. The key thing is that there's a time component to it, which may not be reflected in older sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with TFD's concerns here. First, the GOP is a long term thing and not something that should be defined just by the last few years. That doesn't mean the last few years aren't important, only that if we are to claim the GOP includes X, it needs to be something that is long term. Second, I think there are several levels that could be used here. At one end is the "no mention", at the other is to say in Wiki voice the GOP is RWP. The middle ranges from attributed claims of "has aspects of/similar to" to attributed "has a faction that is" to wiki-voice claims of the same to finally, wiki voice, "it is". We can find a lot of sources that draw something between facets to a faction that is. I think fewer sources would claim the party is. Given the massive volume of articles and literature on "the GOP" we need to be careful about given too much weight any particular idea expressed in recent articles. Ideally we should be using summary/survey type articles to decide the relate weights here. I would be very careful when using negative political commentary from left leaning sources in the runup to Trump's election. How much of that is objective vs people who were worried or looking for the facts to fit their case? Springee (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It's also probably worth looking with the benefit of hindsight and the passage of time at the Tea Party movement, as both another temporal shift in Republican politics and one also described on the page as a popular constitutional movement composed of a mixture of libertarian, right-wing populist, and conservative activism. And that kind of definition is probably going to be required for any given period of time, particularly in a two-party system with alliances between multiple groups for electoral power. Some ideologies will rise and fall over time, some subdivisions will be necessary over issues that enter or leave public consciousness (ie. slavery, abortion), etc. The trick of course is reliably sourcing them, particularly in a timely manner. Ideally, reliable news coverage giving way to academic coverage as academia processes past decades. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this is an insightful point about how timely sources will change over time when digestive academic processes bear fruit. Further, there seems to now be an argument that nothing can be given a WP:SPADE as a name if it hasn't had time for tomes to be written about it. That is not what the policy says. Uncontested descriptions that have considerable attestation in source material may constitute a sufficient majority view for Wiki-voice, such as the idea that the Tea Party consisted of right-wing populist elements. We don't need to attribute such a description because it is a majority view that the Tea Party was RWP, even though it is not a European political party as The Four Deuces says in his original research POV pushing. Andrevan@ 21:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

That is an unsubstantiated claim. One would expect for example that Klaus von Beyme, who pioneered the typology of parties by ideology, would have mentioned it in his book, Rightwing Populism (2018), which "analyses right-wing populism as a topical theme of postmodern party systems in Europe and the United States." Instead he merely says that Trump (and Macron) have been accused of being right-wing populists and says that Trump could be considered an anti-populist. In fact, I cannot find the Tea Party classified as right-wing populist in any textbooks on the topic.You cannot read an op-ed in a a newspaper and assume the opinions expressed represent academic consensus. TFD (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It is simply not the case that unless something is described as something in a textbook, or the textbook that you think is authoritative on the topic, it therefore can't be described as such in Wikipedia. We will accept a mix of reliable news and journalism content, as well as academic journal articles, and books, including academic texts as well as other types of book sources. It's true that academic sources that are accepted as definitive should be accorded more weight. But that does not mean we should discount all the sources except the weightiest, most reputable, most established tomes. More recent topics are going to have a heavier mix of recent news and web-accessible journal article sources. As time goes on, articles can be improved with deeper library dives. However right now, it seems that unless your chosen textbook has written it, you do not believe it merits inclusion. Andrevan@ 00:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think we need to be wary of labeling something as large and diverse as the Republican Party based on one faction within it. Are there Right Wing Populists in the party? Sure… is that the entire party? Nope. There are also establishment centerists, small government libertarians, deficit hawks… lots of factions. Not accurate to single out any one and apply it to all. Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• I thought this page was for discussing sources and their reliability. Is the Republican Party a source? This seems to be the wrong venue for categorizing a political party. But maybe I am just crazy. --SVTCobra 22:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  I concur. Please close the thread, if you would be so inclined, and thank you. Andrevan@ 22:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  I know how to do it, but it feels a little too bold. I am not exactly an RS expert. SVTCobra 00:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree this should have been posted on NPOVN. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Do you have a question about the reliability of a specific source that is used or proposed for use in a specific article? ElKevbo (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

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

historynet.com

What are the impressions of other editors about the accuracy/reliability of the historynet.com platform? The publisher of this website, World History Group, produces various history magazines, while the website itself seems to be a bit of an aggregator of material typically neither attributed to any of its print publications or even a specific author, but just staff. It appears to focus largely on a very pop culture approach to content, with pieces such as this and this. My impression is that it is more of a portal containing historical factoids and teaser material linked to pop culture references or aimed at driving the publisher's magazine subscriptions than a serious source of historical research, yet it is cited in about 800 articles. There has been one, only brief prior discussion on this, in 2014, viewable here. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

At the same time, I think most of the material that is cited on Wikipedia is content that has been syndicated from the publisher's collection of magazines, much of it semi-archival, such as this piece, used in Battle of the Boyne - not sure if this make it equivalent to the original published resource, a useful but potentially less reliable web source, or what really ... Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It's the bottom of the barrel, and I tag but don't remove it from articles unless it's part of a multi-source attribution or I easily find a reliable substitute. The basic problems begin with the general lack of citations (inline or bibliography), the typical lack of bylines, and lack of precision in wording that makes it difficult to independently verify their facts. On the other hand, something like this Rommel article has a human byline and specific dates and locations for easy cross-checking, so that is generally acceptable for mediocre and below articles. But if you want to make a decent article, you can search for the specific facts that you need from the history.net article and see if they're mentioned in an unambiguously reliable source. (Note: I am in no way a scholar of history, so any editor who is should please comment if they have a perception of this site from an academic standpoint.) SamuelRiv (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Dabashi, Hamid (2015). Persophilia: Persian Culture on the Global Scene. Harvard University Press

• Dabashi, Hamid (2015). Persophilia: Persian Culture on the Global Scene. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674504691.

Is this source reliable, and, specifically, can it be used in the Legacy section of the Battle of Thermopylae? Dabashi has made remarks about the actual battle itself, as well as its "ahistorical glorification" in Western thought and in the later "colonial" mindset. Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

More specifically: These edits sourced to Dabashi[45] were reverted on the supposed merit that Dabashi violates WP:FRINGE, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:POV.[46] - LouisAragon (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems the discussion about a source's scholarship in relation to the article's subject has only just begun on the article's talk page. You should consider engaging in the conversation there. At the very least, you attribute an awful lot of text to only two pages of a book that is not even based around the article's timeline, or is even really about history as much as it is about the present. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"You should consider engaging in the conversation there."

I'm definitely going to -- it just saves a lot of time if it can be determined straight away whether the source is crap or not (in relation to the article/article's Legacy section). - LouisAragon (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

For Telugu cinema, Idlebrain.com and 123telugu.com are the number one media sources that have all the information and reviews. They have English and Telugu website versions. Why is there no mention of them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force? DareshMohan (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Ask here - RSN is not the venue for this kind of requests. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Vukašin Mandrapa

Hello. I wonder if it is https://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr and https://www.hkv.hr RS? With that same question for http://pemptousia.com/ and http://www.novosti.rs ,and the book is also questionable Avro Manhattan, The Vatican's Holocaust. In the book it says that there were over 700 thousand victims and on the page Wikipedia 77-100 thousand [[47]]. Please see the sources on the page [[48]] and these are edits and page history [[49]]. I also hope that someone will help edit the page so that it is as it should be. Thank you 93.139.150.38 (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not generally familiar with this subject or region, but I can give a few recommendations. A quick glance and nobody seems to cite Avro Manhattan for scholarship, good or bad. A dispute at the article's talk page raises a few of the concerns, but Vactican's Holocaust is free to read, and while it wouldn't surprise me if it's completely unsuitable as an RS, the text itself does have in-line references, so if you want something from that book you could always just search for other scholars who cite the same primary source.

For the individual news websites I can't make a full judgement as the writing style does not translate well from Google into something I can accurately interpret. The first Novosti article is by historian Antun Miletić who seems to be an established expert in the field (and therefore even his self-published articles can be RS, with caution), and the academic quality of the piece in Novosti depends on whether it's an excerpt or partial summary of previous publications, or a separate monograph -- I can't tell from the translated page.

The 2017 Slobodna Dalmacija article is by a reporter who attributes almost everything to historian/archaeologist Ivo Rendić-Miočević. There's a brief paragraph putting down Marko Ručnov's book, and one saying Aleksandar Pražić supports the thesis. The RS to cite is thus the individual notable scholars being quoted in the article: "said Rendić-Miočević, as quoted in Slobodna Dalmacija" or something like that.

Interesting how the 2015 Hrvatski Tjednik article is used to support the same line as the S-D article, but in this one they also directly criticize S-D for sloppy reprinting of non-expert historians (Julia Gorin 13 March 2010). It is written by Ivo Rendić-Miočević himself, and he mainly takes aim at Milan Bulajić. Again, I'd say Rendić-Miočević is the one to whom you'd want to attribute claims in-line, and not the newspaper.

The Pemptousia article is blockquoting Wikipedia for almost its whole length. Good for them, frankly, that they do so with attribution, but it absolutely can't be cited.

Overall it seems the key part that other editors now and may in the future take issue with is the statement "There is no historical evidence of his existence", which is written in wikivoice. I think as contentious as this seems to be on a political and possibly academic level as well, it's probably worth giving that particular phrase attribution in-text: "According to Ivo Rendić-Miočević...". SamuelRiv (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I added "According to Ivo Rendić-Miočević " I don't want to touch these other suspicious sources, because they will return to the old way again. I would like to ask someone, if possible, to keep an eye on the page so that what I wrote is not deleted, or if possible, edit it better. Thank you very much for your answer.93.139.150.38 (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Is 'World Population Review' a reliable source?

World Population Review presumably provides the latest year data for comparison between countries. However, when I come to check their sources, some of them seems to be old or not working.

I am considering it in List of countries by irreligion, which currently has outdated statistics that does not reflect the world. Statistics need to be updated, as recent statistics have more value. [50][51][52]

Therefore, there is a compromise between reliability and latest data. What do you think? zsteve21 (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

No, its a random internet WP:SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Are the “Basement tapes” an rs for calling the Columbine High School massacre a planned terrorist attack?

See [https://web.archive.org/web/20101125032714/http://acolumbinesite.com/quotes.html] Doug Weller talk 19:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm gonna say a flat out no. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

^^^^. nableezy - 19:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Related issue re use of schoolshooters.info

We use this in four relate articles[53] but I can't find evidence it's a reliable source. The Columbine article has other dubious source, but... Doug Weller talk 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

RIA Novosti's and interfax russia's reliability.

in my opinion, RIA Novosti should get the same classification as TASS (generally unreliable for facts), while Interfax should get the status RIA Novosti is now (no consensus, although with a note that the Russian Interfax should generally be avoided), the reason for RIA Novosti is obvious (not only it is a Russian state-owned channel, and the fact that it has already spread fake news, it also published "What Russia Should Do with Ukraine", a opinion paper explicitly calling for the destruction of Ukraine and Ukrainian culture and people, aka pro-kremlin rhetoric, only these facts would already pretty much classify it as a biased source), while Interfax is.... harder to tell, the Ukrainian version seems legit, although the Russian one has spread rumors that Ukraine was building a nuke/dirty bomb, so, i dont really know, any thoughts? 187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

First and foremost these evaluations have to be time-dependent, and not just some simple color code. Most articles on WP for which newspaper sources are RS take place before 2022, and (probably most?) before 2013 (the merger) as well. RIA Novosti had at least some integrity in their news section as late as 2018, in spite of fake news creeping in (link in article). Opinion was trash since at least 2013, but of course the opinion of non-notable non-experts in newspapers is not a RS almost anywhere. Science and tech is also problematic since 2013 (and comparable, in that writer's opinion, to the UK's Daily Mail prior, which of course isn't great). CJR has a rather nuanced analysis of Russian state media from 2010. Of course the further back you go, the less you have to worry about direct state censorship (and in the 90s, the more you have to worry about crap quality and standards, so I've heard). I mean, what facts are you saying it's unreliable for? If you see a headline like "A pothole on 42nd street got filled Tuesday", do we really think that's unreliable reporting? SamuelRiv (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Im talking about using RIA Novosti for "facts", specially on the war in Ukraine, although we could do with RIA Novosti like we did to Newsweek (until a certain time period (in this case until 2018 for general stuff, and 2013 for opinions, tech and science, maybe also exclude the 90s because of quality, standarts, etc)= more or less reliable), and, no, im not talking about basic things like "pothole on street is filled", im talking about using RIA Novosti for facts about the war in Ukraine and stuff, although it can be used for statements by Russian politicians, kremlin officials and the Russian state, although, as always, attributing the fact that its a STATEMENT/CLAIM, for Interfax Russia, the note should say the same (generally avoid it to state facts, but reliable for STATEMENTS/CLAIMS by the Kremlin and pro-kremlin politicians), as always, also say the basics (opinion papers and stuff shouldnt be used). 187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have edge cases or a specific disagreement then it would be helpful to link to that instance. Otherwise we just have to speak in generalities and guess at what you're referring to. You obviously shouldn't use daily newspaper reports for any specific military-related statistics. Many Western newspapers have very high-level sources, but even then it's hard to know whether a high-level government source will have reliable statistics in the middle of a war, especially with less-than-top-tier militaries. So that's one of about 50 possible types of fact you could be trying to verify. Did I guess right? SamuelRiv (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What im talking about is that people will try and push RIA Novosti into random articles to push POV and propaganda, i dont really need to link a single instance, theres a LOT of instances of RIA Novosti publishing propaganda, and some idiots have tried to put it in articles (like 2022 Western Russia attacks) to try and "prove" a point, although the consensus was against including them. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Not just RIA, but any source or reporting in general should be chosen carefully surrounding war. Because as it is said: "In war, truth is the first casualty." What's reported today can turn out to be untrue tomorrow or even mere hours from now as things constantly change. Also some of what you refer are likely syndicated pieces highlighted and often times "Reliable sources" report the same info if even just to inform others what's out there.CaribDigita (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

i know, the thing is that RIA Novosti has spread fake news, if we are going to let them in, them might as well let TASS, RT and Sputnik in, also, a lot of what they have reported, specially related to the war, has been disproven, what i want to is at least make it clear that you cant use RIA to state facts like it has been done in the past, for random claims and statements by Russian politicians or public figures? its fine, but not to state facts, the same way you probably don't want TASS, RT and Sputnik in is the same reason we shouldn't let RIA Novosti in to STATE "FACTS", i repeat, STATEMENTS BY RUSSIAN PUBLIC FIGURES, OK but not to use it as a reliable source in any way, the way RIA Novosti is considered now opens a LOT of breaches that Russian trolls may try to use to push POV and Russian disinformation/propaganda. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Royal Central (cont.)

(Continuation of the discussion here). I'm starting this to reference to the Royal Central discussion a few weeks ago. Having messaged them informing them of the apparent plagiarism, I can report that after 2 weeks (and having returned from holiday), I have received no response from them by email and the offending article still shows the apparent copied Wikipedia content. So I think this does go back to my original question but having read others opinions, I think instead of the full depreciation suggestion, we only depreciate anything written by the journalist/author who wrote the article. I suggest this given the other examples of apparent plagiarism from the writer that were provided by other users in the original discussion. What would people think would be the best way to approach this? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable and sufficient to establish notability for a book?

The book is Dust of Dreams (novel), which IMHO is a decent read if I recall it correctly. The sources are "Elistist Book Reviews"[54] and Fantasy Book Review. [55] Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Elitist Book Reviews appears to be a group-blog type of site, couldn't find any indication that any of the participants are noted reviewers or SMEs. Fantasy Book Review gives no information about who is behind the site. I don't think either supports notability for the individual book, and would recommend redirecting it to Malazan Book of the Fallen. (Looked around and couldn't find any reputable reviews to add to the the article.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Schazjmd Two new reviews have been added. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, those are better sources, and provide the two independent reviews required by WP:NBOOK, IMO. Schazjmd (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Fox News (politics and science

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RfC has been retracted by OP until a better case is made in the future. I request that Fox News should be deprecated concerning politics and science. This month, news credibility watchdog NewsGuard (screenshot) downgraded Fox News as a whole from a Green to a Red rating. This means that NewsGuard re-considered Fox News and found that the news site generally does not adhere to basic standards of credibility and transparency. Much of the reasoning laid out for the downgrade cites a consistent pattern by Fox News of promoting falsehoods regarding events since the last Wikipedia editor review in 2020: the 2021 United States Capitol attack, the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war, covid, and American elections. FlantasyFlan (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC) I agree. I think there is already an established consensus on this that Fox News is not reliable for politics. I agree it should not be reliable for any topic. Andrevan@ 17:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Bad Rfc. They gave MSNBC an even lower rating, funny how the OP requests to ban one and doesn't mention the other. Anyway, there's nothing here that indicates there's a current problem or dispute concerning Wikipedia citing Fox. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC) If there are serious concerns about the reliability of MSNBC, I don't know if that should be considered reliable either. I also am not familiar with NewsGuard, but Fox News has perennially had serious issues. Andrevan@ 18:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC) WP:AGF. Also, all of the issues I've mentioned are not only current, but have progressed significantly since the last look by the editors. FlantasyFlan (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Looking at the previous discussion I have to agree with "bad RFC". We need very clear options for voting. I STRONGLY recommend that you retract this before too many editors get involved and start over from scratch, giving giving multiple labeled options (including deprecation) and wider arguments, including ones which specifically note problems with the status quo. I think it's OK to hold another one but here we're heading towards another "failed RFC" close and another long wait until someone gets the process right. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Thanks for the screenshot by the way, because that makes quoting and searching so much easier. The operative section is #3: "Credibility". The first two paragraphs are an endorsement, fine, and then the takedown: nearly every single paragraph is a story title beginning in a name: Hannity, Ingraham, Piro, and Tucker Tucker Tucker. Stop the freaking presses, you're telling me those guys are nutjobs??? I guess it's a good thing that "the site features separate pages for every regular Fox News program, including those hosted by primetime hosts." The third paragraph from the end of this section, I couldn't find where they mention the mix-up of news and opinion video content on a specific section of the website; the unlabeled opinion I assume refers to the lifestyle column; and as for not disclosing a (conservative) bias, I mean, that's a shared condemnation across the news industry for the past 20 years. To address the blatant opinion in a "Lifestyle" section, while that's not acceptable, I've seen those sections on reputable newspapers range in approach from being straight news-style reporting to full-on commentary. Obviously if any article begins like that it's not a straight-news source, and if it's pervasive in that section then you shouldn't use that section as you would news. The tldr is that as long as you can find the separate the primetime idiots from the journalists, as NewsGuard claims you can (or at least with the exception of one video which I again must have missed), then we should continue allow the journalists whom NewsGuard appears to endorse and continue to reject the primetime hosts whom NewsGuard condemns. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Transfermarkt

It has come to my attention that there have been four discussions here about Transfermarkt, a German website used to track football players and clubs. They can be found here, here, here and here. The consensus on all of these articles has been that Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. However, I am starting this discussion for two reasons- first, the most recent discussion was in 2013, and a lot has changed since then. Second, it clearly states on the Transfermarkt FAQ [[56]] that "Corrections will not be taken over right after sending because they have to be checked first by the administrators or the data scouts. Due to the high number of corrections, it can take some time to prove and accept the correction." This means that the information is technically peer reviewed, and therefore (somewhat) reliable. If information sourced off of Transfermarkt was allowed, it would make a lot of things a lot easier. For instance, many result sources link to pages from official league match lists, which have since updated to the latest matches. This would make it much easier to create articles for past seasons (I am asking this because I might use it to make a "2021-22 Tigres UANL season" article. Any suggestions or comments would be greatly appreciated. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to think it is not reliable. Its editorial processes are completely opaque. --Boynamedsue (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "opaque"? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Mauryan Art (unpublished, 1952) and Flickr picture

• Agrawala, Vasudeva S. (1965), "Mauryan Art", Indian art : a history of Indian art from the earliest times up to the third century A.D., Vishwavidyalaya Prakashan, Varanasi, pp. 56–74, OCLC 475432099 is a collection of papers written earlier by Agrawala. The particular one, "Mauryan Art," is an unpublished one written in 1952.
• A Flickr picture: INDIA 2019 - Sarnath Archaeological Museum Ashokan Lion Capital which shows a 24-spoked wheel surmounting a pillar.

Would either be a reliable source for an edit in which a hand-drawn illustration of a 36-spoked wheel is proposed to be introduced in a Wikipedia article, Lion capital of Ashoka by an editor in this proposal? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

Several sources in article that are on the Perennial list, per RELIABLE. Several twitter citations that are not owned by LOTR:TRP are found; others are of a speculative nature and of unclear veracity.

The two most egregious usages are: 1) Fandom.com (unclear licensing, unclear ownership as its fan-based content, unclear wp:NPOV, un-VERIFIABLE, and is seen here at wp:Perennial sources#Fandom; 2) Metro_(UK) (Not considered reliable, unclear ownership of presented video content, unclear wp:NPOV, and can be seen here at wp:Perennial sources#Metro.

Additional input is requested. Thanks GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

srbin.info reliability?

Recently an unregistered user has been using this website as a source for a claim regarding S-400 missile systems in the ukraine war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S-400_missile_system&diff=1099710716&oldid=1099679621

The website seems to be heavily positively biased towards russia. A lot of its articles, including the one above, cannot be verified through prominent news outlets. It also seems to heavily rely on sputnik, which is a wikipedia deprecated source. Interestingly enough, at the bottom of some of the articles the source is stated simply as "Source: Facts".

The website does not seem to be reliable regarding politics, specifically when it's related to russia. Eddmanx (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)